1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    16 Aug '11 04:01
    From Bhagavad Gita

    vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya
    navani grhnati naro 'parani
    tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
    anyani samyati navani dehi

    SYNONYMS

    vasamsi--garments; jirnani--old and worn out; yatha--as it is; vihaya--giving up; navani--new garments; grhnati--does accept; narah--a man; aparani--other; tatha--in the same way; sarirani--bodies; vihaya--giving up; jirnani--old and useless; anyani--different; samyati--verily accepts; navani--new sets; dehi--the embodied.

    Text 22
    As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.
    Text 23
    The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind
    Text 24
    This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
    Text 25
    It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body
  2. Standard memberusmc7257
    semper fi
    Joined
    02 Oct '03
    Moves
    112520
    16 Aug '11 04:26
    If someone close to you died, would you not mourn their loss?
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Aug '11 05:16
    Originally posted by Dasa
    It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body
    But it is the Body that I care about, not the soul. Who cares about some invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable entity that really has nothing to do with who I am?
  4. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    16 Aug '11 05:261 edit
    Originally posted by Dasa
    From Bhagavad Gita

    Text 25
    It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body
    if the soul is inconceivable, how is it that you can conceive so much about it?
  5. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    16 Aug '11 09:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But it is the Body that I care about, not the soul. Who cares about some invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable entity that really has nothing to do with who I am?
    You have decided that you are your body and nothing else. If you ask yourself who is this 'I', you will realise that 'you' are not only your gross body but two other 'things' besides. These are: i) your subtle body comprising of the impressions from your past births,your present birth impressions, your 'karma' from past & present births. As a scientist you may not believe this. Let us say this subtle body is comprising of genetically coded information about you.ii) Your soul. We believe this is a part of God and goes from one gross body to another,on death of the present gross body. It is accompanied by subtle body. It is a witness to the various acts of the gross body.
  6. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    16 Aug '11 10:03
    Text 22
    As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.
    are you saying you belive in the soul goes from one person to another after the death of the body.
    the rest of the text you put is reasonable, the soul needs no food, carnt get sick, lives forever , etc
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Aug '11 10:26
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    You have decided that you are your body and nothing else. If you ask yourself who is this 'I', you will realise that 'you' are not only your gross body but two other 'things' besides. These are: i) your subtle body comprising of the impressions from your past births,your present birth impressions, your 'karma' from past & present births. As a scientist you may not believe this.
    So you simultaneously say "you will realize" then admit that I " may not believe this."
    Which is it?

    Let us say this subtle body is comprising of genetically coded information about you.ii) Your soul. We believe this is a part of God and goes from one gross body to another,on death of the present gross body. It is accompanied by subtle body. It is a witness to the various acts of the gross body.
    And who cares? I have no interest in this 'soul' entity. I have no desire to protect it, aid it, help it, etc. I have no empathy for it. I care only about my current life.
    When I talk of 'I', it is only the current life that I have in mind. You may include other things in your understanding of 'I', but I do not.

    You are essentially playing the same game that theists typically play where they invent a soul concept, admit that it is not 'I', then act and speak as if it is. Of course once you point this out to them they disappear because this basic contradiction destroys their whole religion.
  8. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69613
    16 Aug '11 11:02
    Originally posted by usmc7257
    If someone close to you died, would you not mourn their loss?
    Dasa has confirmed before that he wouldn't.
  9. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    16 Aug '11 11:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So you simultaneously say "you will realize" then admit that I " may not believe this."
    Which is it?

    [b]Let us say this subtle body is comprising of genetically coded information about you.ii) Your soul. We believe this is a part of God and goes from one gross body to another,on death of the present gross body. It is accompanied by subtle body. It is ...[text shortened]... them they disappear because this basic contradiction destroys their whole religion.
    True. I had said that you will realise. That was my hope. If you keep an open mind, you may still see that you are not only your gross body. Most scientists however disbelieve this,hence my comment. Soul does not require any help,care,empathy from me or you. If you think that 'you' are nothing but your 'life',what has happened to your ego,your personality, your internal software ? In our view,that was your subtle body. However,there is a witness to all of one's life. That is one's soul. I am sorry to note that you do not care for all this. It is said that one can wake up a person who is asleep but one can't wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep. By the way, I do not play games when I debate here. I am quite sincere and transparent.
  10. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    16 Aug '11 11:26
    Originally posted by stoker
    are you saying you belive in the soul goes from one person to another after the death of the body.
    the rest of the text you put is reasonable, the soul needs no food, carnt get sick, lives forever , etc
    Tranmigration of Souls from one body to another on the death of the first body is one of the tenets of Hindu spiritualism. Many scientists are doing research on this.
  11. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    16 Aug '11 12:01
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    if the soul is inconceivable, how is it that you can conceive so much about it?
    Hindu spiritualism admits that there is no denotation to 'God' or ' Soul'. Our writings say that God/Soul cannot be correctly described. It is said human speech & thought retreat from this concept, defeated. ' Not this,Not this' are the words in the Vedas when trying to describe. However,the Geeta has still tried describing Soul,in the interest of the Sadhak. God/Soul are to be experienced rather than described.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Aug '11 12:26
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    True. I had said that you will realise. That was my hope.
    But by phrasing it that way, you came across as implying it was obvious, then, qualifying that by pointing out that I won't get it. In fact, it is not obvious.

    If you keep an open mind, you may still see that you are not only your gross body.
    People who want something to be taken on faith always talk of keeping an open mind, when in reality you mean 'if you believe any old nonsense'. I am more than willing to accept something that is explained to me and makes sense. That is keeping an open mind. But what you want is for me to accept it without explanation and without it making sense.

    Most scientists however disbelieve this,hence my comment.
    And why do you think that is?

    I am sorry to note that you do not care for all this.
    Why are you sorry? Why do you care?

    It is said that one can wake up a person who is asleep but one can't wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep.
    And in general, people who talk like that do so to avoid admitting that they are incapable of explaining their beliefs rationally. If I refuse to listen, then you can rightly give up. But if you give up before I refuse to listen, then it is you that is at fault and not the sleeper.

    By the way, I do not play games when I debate here. I am quite sincere and transparent.
    But you play games in your theology with yourself. Instead of solving problems, you bury them in layers and pretend they are solved when in fact you have just compounded them.
  13. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    16 Aug '11 15:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But by phrasing it that way, you came across as implying it was obvious, then, qualifying that by pointing out that I won't get it. In fact, it is not obvious.

    [b]If you keep an open mind, you may still see that you are not only your gross body.

    People who want something to be taken on faith always talk of keeping an open mind, when in reality you ...[text shortened]... bury them in layers and pretend they are solved when in fact you have just compounded them.[/b]
    Instead of arguing with me as a person or pointing out some semantic lacunae,let us come to grips with the point. The point was whether there is an "I" as distinct from one's gross body.
    I request you try an experiment yourself. In early morning,at a suitable time,when you are unlikely to be disturbed disconnect your landline phone/switch off the cellphone,close the door of your bedroom.Sit comfortably.Close your eyes.Let your mind wander as it may.Let the thoughts rise up and then go.Just note your breath going in and out. Concentrate on your breathing only.A lot of dirt will rise up in the mind and go.Some dirty and ugly thoughts may persist and try to distract.Don't pay attention.Some pleasant thoughts also may try to distract.Don't pay attention.After a while( say after about 15 minutes),may be only after a week or longer of such a practice,you will note that the interval between thoughts gushing into your mind is becoming longer.Your mind is getting calmer.After you feel calm and focused,then ask yourself,what is this" I" that is asking this question.Is it my body or something else? Strip your "I" of all predicates.What will then be felt is your Soul.
    What I have stated above is Vipasshana Sadhana as practiced by Buddhist initiates. Try it and let me know.
    I was sad that you did not care was because I was unable to bring you to even consider alternative possibilities. As a fellow human,I was astonished at the anger about a theist suggestion that Soul/God exists.
    I do not know why many scientists do not believe this.My guess is that they are comfortable with a methodology suitable for scientific inquiry of natural phenomena but are uncomfortable to look beyond.
    The major problem faced by humans is to try and make a sense of themselves and the reality around them,so that doubts do not persist and mind becomes blissful.Has Science achieved that ?
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    16 Aug '11 15:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But by phrasing it that way, you came across as implying it was obvious, then, qualifying that by pointing out that I won't get it. In fact, it is not obvious.

    [b]If you keep an open mind, you may still see that you are not only your gross body.

    People who want something to be taken on faith always talk of keeping an open mind, when in reality you ...[text shortened]... bury them in layers and pretend they are solved when in fact you have just compounded them.[/b]
    I can clearly understand every word that rvsakhandeo has said.

    The soul being inconceivable means trying to comprehend the soul proper (its existence is imposable) but a honest person who has lived the spiritual life and studied the bonafide teachings from the Veda can at least conceive of the souls characteristics which are described in the Veda..

    The atom and its construct is inconceivable but it doesn't stop persons with microscopes appreciating its characteristics.

    String theory is inconceivable but it doesn't stop string theory advocates from appreciating it,s conceived characteristics.

    Your fault finding theatrics are just a show of defiance to defend atheism...... instead of being honest criticism.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Aug '11 15:55
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Try it and let me know.
    I am afraid I don't have the time for such experiments, especially since you haven't convinced me that the results would be enlightening in any way.

    I was sad that you did not care was because I was unable to bring you to even consider alternative possibilities.
    I have considered alternative possibilities, but I still don't see why I should care.

    As a fellow human,I was astonished at the anger about a theist suggestion that Soul/God exists.
    The 'anger' you were astonished by does not exist.

    I do not know why many scientists do not believe this.My guess is that they are comfortable with a methodology suitable for scientific inquiry of natural phenomena but are uncomfortable to look beyond.
    Or maybe because we believe that the only valid inquiry is the scientific methodology.

    The major problem faced by humans is to try and make a sense of themselves and the reality around them,so that doubts do not persist and mind becomes blissful.
    I disagree.

    Has Science achieved that ?
    No, because it is no the aim of science.

    I must note, that although self delusion can achieve your aim, I personally prefer reality.
Back to Top