How Many Are You?

[Zoe]

I've been teetering between being a duelist with body and mind and a monist with only my entire self... Wanted to know what you guys thought.

[WanderingTaoist]

That's a very interesting question, Zoe. But tell me, is the whole merely the sum of its parts? And for that matter, how do you define "soul" and "mind"?

[Michael]

I've been teetering between being a duelist with body and mind and a monist with only my entire self... Wanted to know what you guys thought.


You and me both :lol:

[spiritual_emergency]

At core, I suspect I am nothing at all.

[scameter]

To me, I am apart of life, and so am apart of everything, as everything, as life.

[Noway2Zero]

A part of the one thing that truely exists, but seems to slip out of sight when attempting to attach words or any material explaination.

you can try..

Life, Love, Truth, Consciousness, God, Allah, Tao, The Way, Soul, Spirit, Mind, are all merely words without the understanding that follows they are just words, with the understanding you dont need words.

[Thomas Knierim]

And I always thought that duelism involves swords and guns. :P

Okay, three. Soul, mind, and body in order of descending durability. Trikaya. Trinity.

Cheers, Thomas

[Zoe]

My "mind" is my brain. It contains my ideas and memories with electrolytes and whatever else it uses. It's tangeble.

As for the soul.... I'm not sure of the existance of a soul, making it wicked hard to define.

My latest consideration has been that the mind is a painter and the body a canvas. The painting is constantly being worked on, never ending, always growing. The paint is provided to us by our experiences, the ones we chose to keep, to spin, to forget, or to run our lives by. Our image is completely controlled by the paint options we have and the painter's decision.

Soul plays no part in my personal reasoning.

[bito]

Living is as an eternal flow or dance; any thoughts of what living is or what dancing is, as in "how many am I"? can never be answered, for how can living, how can dancing be counted?

We know we cannot catch water and wind, but we try and try until we KNOW.

[bito]

saying living is an eternal flow
saying living is an eternal dance
is trying to step into the stream to catch the water that is living

:lol:

saying step, into, the, stream, to catch, the, water, that
are also thoughts of living

:goodlaugh:

[WanderingTaoist]

And I always thought that duelism involves swords and guns

:lol: That has interesting implications for Cartesian duelism! But, after all, Descartes was a solider before he was a philosopher ;)

Soul plays no part in my personal reasoning.

It need not be a part of reasoning to be a part of you. Although many have seen the soul as having an intellectual function which expresses itself through Mind.

Regardless, most cultures have seen the soul as the principle of life. As such it is often associated with the breath in many religions. Take the concept of ch'i for example.

[spiritual_emergency]

WanderingTaoist: Most cultures, however, have seen the soul as the principle of life. As such it is often associated with the breath in many religions. Take the concept of chi for example.

Or anima...



Anima (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2388/?letter=A&spage=9)-, refers to “a living being” from a Latin form meaning, “of air, having a spirit, living”, which in turn comes from another form meaning, “breath of air, air, soul, life”.

anima: In Jung’s terminology, the soul, that part of the psyche that is directed inwardly and is in touch with the unconscious; the anima is contrasted with the persona, which is the outer attitude or outer character.



Also lovely...



Through time, the connection of the breath to health, healing, consciousness and spirit has been reflected in various cultures through their language. In Japanese, kiair/spirit. In Latin, anima spiritus breath/soul. The Chinese characters for breath, hsi, is made up of three characters that translate "of the conscious self or heart". In Sanskrit, prana is the life force energy within the air we breathe that pulses through and animates our being.

Source: Yoga Dialogues (http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/insp/yogadialogues.html)

[Michael]

Back to the past -

I'm still counting

[MidnightSun]

My body sucks and my mind sucks, i cant control them anymore. The only thing that I am part of is soul

[WanderingTaoist]

My body sucks and my mind sucks, i cant control them anymore. The only thing that I am part of is soul

Are you a part of your soul, or is your soul part of you?

[MidnightSun]

I am a part of my soul, but my soul is apart from me.

[Starry_Canopy]

Since the soul manifests the mind and the mind manifests the body, I am one - the soul, existing in a changing state of the three - soul, mind and body

[acomiclife]

i find this a difficult question to answer. on the one hand i recognize that i am separated parts; a conventional mind, soul, and body. i can take any of these things further and split them apart. within my body is my digestive system and my nervous system (which don't agree as my mind wants to be eating things that my body will reject). my mind can be split into my rational thinking (i ought to eat today) or my irrational thinking (if i eat i'll get fat and i'd hate to get fat because then no one will like me) and my soul is in constant flux between good and evil (though usually it balances out).

but in trying to find harmony with myself i discovered that thinking about myself as being distinct entities leads to problems. my soul is no different than my body, no different than my mind. i am my soul just as much as i am my body and am my mind. so i answered none.

both in recognition of the fact that there was no choice for being for the sake of being; being just one because i am just one and not a multitude. but also because i think that i have not yet reached a culmination of myself. i am none because i am nowhere.

[Starry_Canopy]

An observation: If we use our bodily senses to 'see', the body can be grasped; the mind can be seen, not grasped; the effects of the spirit can be seen or grasped, but it itself can neither be seen nor grasped. Perhaps the information obtained through the bodily senses are not the best data for understanding the mind and spirit.

[clyde]

What do you mean by the term "soul"?

Do no harm,
clyde

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

I'm torn between Body/ Mind and None

[Taeguk]

Hi!

clyde, you asked:

What do you mean by the term "soul"?

Which I think is an excellent question!

It certainly helps to know what the "parts" are, and even if such parts exist before making metaphysical judgements!

What is the soul, indeed. :lol:

Earlier, WanderingTaoist wrote:

most cultures have seen the soul as the principle of life.

Which I think is a good place to start :)

So what is this "principle of life"? :think:

I think there's a tendency to envision the soul as some kind of "pilot" for a material body, or as some kind of very subtle, ectoplasmic substance that is somehow "inside of" the body. We think of the soul as being trapped in the body, and struggling to remove itself from this flawed world. It's a "Ghost in the Shell".

Personally, I'm not convinced this is the case!

If the soul is really so much higher than the body, why would it need the body at all? What horrible karma made it so that we are bound to this block of matter? It seems very dualistic, and a whole bunch of other questions seem to arise.

I view the soul as being more holistic, as including the entire whole of a person. Including that person's body!

I think the "soul" is nothing other than the organizing, intelligible structure of my body and mind.

The soul is analagous to the blueprints of a house. The house is obviously built out of wood, nails, etc., but all of that material has to be organized into some structure.

The material is maintaining this structure. The "blueprint" actually exists only because of the physical parts which constitute it, but it is not reducible to these constituent parts.

And when the house is built, is there any seperation between the "material" of the house and the "blueprint" of the house?

The seperation only exists in our minds. The house is a unity. The person is a unity.

It's not unlike Aristotle's conception of "substantial forms" or Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic field".

That is how I view the soul, but I am not my soul any more than I am my body.

There is no "self". :)

[clyde]

Taeguk;

As I understand what you wrote, you seem to reject one view and present two views of the soul.

You reject the view that the soul is a homunculus (the “pilot” within the person).

You present the first view that the soul is “the entire whole of a person”, including the body and presumably the mind.

You then present a second view that the soul is an “organizing, intelligible structure” which you liken to blueprints. The analogy with a house fails in that there is builder separate from the blueprint and materials that builds a house while our body and mind seem to be self-organizing or determined by circumstances.

I tend to avoid the term “soul”; however, since all “parts” are arbitrary, I can accept the first view; i.e., that soul is the label for the whole person where it is understood that there is no eternal self-existent entity. As you wrote, “There is no "self".”

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

Hi clyde!

You wrote:

You present the first view that the soul is “the entire whole of a person”, including the body and presumably the mind.

You then present a second view that the soul is an “organizing, intelligible structure” which you liken to blueprints.

I don't really draw a distinction between the "two views"; maybe I should have worded my thoughts better! :duh: Thanks for pointing out the discrepency! :)

A better reinstatement of the perspective expressed would be:

The person is a whole, although we can metally seperate the "soul" from the "body" in much the same way we can seperate the "structure" of a house from the "material" used to build that house.

You go on to say:

Theanalogy with a house fails in that there is builder separate from the blueprint and materials that builds a house while our body and mind seem to be self-organizing or determined by circumstances.

And you are of course correct! The analogy is hardly perfect; like all analogies, it eventually breaks down if you try to carry it too far! :lol:

Although I would suggest that in a sense, the person is "built" by a "builder" during the process in the womb, or, if you like, by God or Nature.

Maybe a more fitting analogy would be that of a song:

Here the "soul" or "blueprint" is the music itself---the notes, and the structure of their relationship to each other.

The "body" is the voice one uses in the translating of the music into sound.

The song is the whole made up of both the sound and the musical structure!

Come to think of it, one could use this analogy to speak of life in general: as human beings, we all have the "music of what it means to be human", and our seperate lives are as seperate voices, each singing this common song in its own pitch.

Of course, the music of all these voices becomes a harmony, which is the sound of humanity sailing through the universe; the universe itself is a symphony, and the song of humanity is but a single part of this symphony! :)

Again, not a perfect analogy. But then, no analogy is completely perfect, right? Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I simply can't come up with a perfect analogy :lol:

[clyde]

Taeguk;

Yes, all analogies fail (as do all conceptual systems), so let’s not argue about the analogy. Initially I thought you were presenting a view that the soul was “holistic” and was the “entire whole of a person”. Now you write that the soul is part of the person like the written music to a song. That is a beautiful way to think of it, though I prefer the holistic view.

More critical is whether one believes the soul, however defined, is eternal, self-existent, and independent. Do you?

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde, you wrote:

Yes, all analogies fail (as do all conceptual systems), so let’s not argue about the analogy. Initially I thought you were presenting a view that the soul was “holistic” and was the “entire whole of a person”. Now you write that the soul is part of the person like the written music to a song. That is a beautiful way to think of it, though I prefer the holistic view.

Perhaps I am somewhat confused on my own opinions about the matter! :lol:

Thank you for pointing that out, and for considering my (flawed) analogy beautiful :)


You go on to ask:

More critical is whether one believes the soul, however defined, is eternal, self-existent, and independent. Do you?

Is the soul eternal and self-existent and independent?

I don't think any thing is self-existent or independent, and that would definitely include the soul!

Do I believe the soul is eternal? That, I don't know. A song need not be sung in order to still exist, in some way. But this may be stretching an already flawed analogy to the breaking point.

Let me just say that even if the soul is eternal, I do not think the soul alone is the "self". What we perceive as "self" is not eternal. The material that composed the body goes on, entering the composition of other bodies. And perhaps the organizational structure continues in the same way that mathematical figures and bars of music "exist".

But the "self"? The "I"? That was never there to begin with! :)

[clyde]

Taeguk;

If one accepts that the soul, like all things, is not self-existent (implying that it appears due to causes and conditions) and is not independent (meaning it depends on causes and conditions for it continued existence), it seems to follow that . . . the soul is not eternal.

That is not to say that you and I don't provisionally exist.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde, you wrote:

If one accepts that the soul, like all things, is not self-existent (implying that it appears due to causes and conditions) and is not independent (meaning it depends on causes and conditions for it continued existence), it seems to follow that . . . the soul is not eternal.


Indeed, but it may be that the causes and conditions allowing for its existence are such that the soul continues after the death of the person.

I interpret "person" to be the union of body and soul (from which the illusion of "self" arises!). Clearly, the causes and conditions allowing the soul to inform the body do not endure forever, since people die.

However, I don't know if they are such that the soul then continues to "exist" in some sense after the fact.

The body returns to its source after death and is dissolved. Why shouldn't the soul do the same?

Regardless though, the soul is not the self. Even if it continues a (provisional) existence after the death of the person, there is no "self" that continues. clyde's soul is not clyde, Taeguk's soul is not Taeguk.

You finish by reminding me that:

That is not to say that you and I don't provisionally exist.

I certainly hope this is the case, since we (provisionally) seem to be having this conversation! :lol:

[clyde]

Taeguk;

If a soul is dependent on causes and conditions, then to exist eternally those causes and conditions must also exist eternally, and each of those causes and conditions is a thing which has its own set of causes and conditions that it depends on which would need to exist eternally, and those … . I think you see my point.

You wrote,
The body returns to its source after death and is dissolved. Why shouldn't the soul do the same?
I think it is more accurate that the constituents of our body return to their source. Depending on how one defines soul and views its “substance”, it may be that the constituents of our soul return to their source. (I do not believe in a "soul substance" apart from physical and mental occurrences, and think some people define soul as some category or set of mental occurrences.)

You wrote,
You finish by reminding me that:

That is not to say that you and I don't provisionally exist.

I certainly hope this is the case, since we (provisionally) seem to be having this conversation!
You previously wrote,
But the "self"? The "I"? That was never there to begin with!
Hence, my "reminder". :)

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde,

If a soul is dependent on causes and conditions, then to exist eternally those causes and conditions must also exist eternally, and each of those causes and conditions is a thing which has its own set of causes and conditions that it depends on which would need to exist eternally, and those … . I think you see my point.

Your point is well taken! But perhaps there is some "thing" that does exist eternally, with the reservation that it is not, in any way, a "thing". This "thing" is existence itself.

And thank you for your reminder! :)

[clyde]

Taeguk;

One of the definitions of “eternal” is unchanging. Regarding “existence itself”, my experience of existence is it appears to be constantly changing.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde,

You wrote:

One of the definitions of “eternal” is unchanging. Regarding “existence itself”, my experience of existence is it appears to be constantly changing.

It seems to me that existents, or existence as limited (in any number of ways), are certainly always changing.

Existence itself, in and of itself, is unlimited and eternal. It is, and it always is.

[clyde]

Taeguk;

Aren’t the things that appear, change, and cease part of “existence itself, in and of itself"? If so, then existence is constantly changing. If not, then you are positing an inherent duality.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

Hi again, clyde!

First of all, thanks for responding to my posts the other night! I have thouroughly enjoyed bouncing our ideas and analogies off of each other :)

You wrote:

Aren’t the things that appear, change, and cease part of “existence itself, in and of itself"? If so, then existence is constantly changing. If not, then you are positing an inherent duality.

An inherent duality? I don't think this is the case, although easily I could be mistaken!

I can see why you might think so, though. Let me explain this position fully, and then let me know what you think :)

"Things that appear" or phenomena, are indeed changing and ceasing. And as phenomena, they are differentiated from each. A flower is not a rock is not a car is not a tree is not a cat is not a human being. This is the way most people view the world.

But what is it to be a rock, to be a cat, to be a tree, to be a human being, etc? We can see how they differ; but how are they the same? What do they have in common?

What they have in common is that they are; they all exist. To be a thing, of any sort, is to exercise a certain mode or capacity for existence. To be a thing is to be a manifestation of existence, limited in a particular way. As two humans, we are two different acts of existing (hence we are "different"), but we exercise the same existential mode (hence we are able to recognize each other as being two humans).

What does this mean? It means that ultimately the significance of a thing does not lie with its "thinghood", because this its thinghood has no significance aside from existence! It is existence that makes a "thing" to be a thing, since to be a thing is to exercise some particular capacity for existence. Put in the language of existentialism, a thing's "essence" or "selfhood" is simply where existence stops, bordered by nothing.

Or, to use the language of Buddhism, there is no persisting "self", since a "self" is simply a realized possibility for existence. And as we know, phenomena are all imperanent, arising and disappearing. There is no "thing" which can endure forever.

However, existence itself is not a thing, since to be a thing is to be a limited expression of existence. Existence has no "essence"; it is literally "no-thing". It is a void, an emptiness, and we cannot conceive of it. Somewhat paradoxically, however, it is empty because it is "full", it is unlimited.

Keiji Nishitani, a Zen philosopher, asks us to imagine multiple rays of light streaming out from a common source. The normal way of experiencing reality is to see the rays of light at their ends; it's to see phenomena as differentiated. The center, however, is "the point at which the being of things is constituted in unison with emptiness."

But it's not an absolute center! He goes on to say: "a center that is only a center and nothing else, a center on the field of emptiness… Each thing in its own selfness shows the mode of being of the center of all things...even the tiniest thing, to the extent that it "is" is an absolute center situated at the center of all things."

I'm not sure if that's non-dualistic, or even if I've expressed things in a clear manner. Very possibly, the entire idea is somewhat flawed or I have misinterpreted Nishitani.

But either way, clyde, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. :)

[clyde]

Taeguk;

Yes, I have enjoyed our dialogue and the exploration.

You write about things, “thinghood” and the essence of things. You wrote,
What they have in common is that they are; they all exist.
But what does it mean that “they all exist”? Does it have more meaning than they appear?

You also write about “existence” or “existence itself”. I think you are pointing to, to use several phrases that have, at least for me, similar meaning, “the ground of being”, “the source”, or Dharmakaya. But you seem to suggest that it is separate from the things that exist. How is that?

Let me suggest that another way is to think of phenomena not as things, but as occurrences. You and I, as well as birds and bees, flowers and trees, tables and chairs, are ongoing events. The universe, as it is, is the ongoing event, the suchness.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde,

You asked:

what does it mean that “they all exist”? Does it have more meaning than they appear?

And that is a question which truly goes to the heart of the matter!

It's been my experience that most people think of existence like this, when they think of it all. Either a basic quality of just being present, or else as some kind of quality added to phenomena.

I don't think this is the case, however. Existence is kneaded into the very fabric of things; it is not seperate from them, nor is it contained by them. It overflows every particular manifestation. Later on, you speak of phenomena and the universe itself as the "suchness"; I agree, but I would add that it is this limitless existence that allows for and underlys the suchness.

I think this line of thought prevails because existence seems to be "empty" of content; we cannot form a concept of it. Everything we can form a concept of is a particular expression or contraction of existence.

But, I could very well be wrong about this! :)

Ultimately, I'm not sure this is something I can "prove" through discussion (although if you want we can continue to try!); it's something that has to be experienced or intuited or received. It's kind of both the beginning and the ending of my thoughts on this matter.

To discover more, one must be empty, silent, and still. Give oneself over to the unfolding. And I think, clyde, that whatever theoretical differences we may have we will completely agree on this point. :)

You go to write:

I think you are pointing to, to use several phrases that have, at least for me, similar meaning, “the ground of being”, “the source”, or Dharmakaya.

Yes. :) Especially "pointing to", as opposed to "encapsulating" or "defining". How good I am at pointing is clearly up for debate! ;)

Finally, you ask:

But you seem to suggest that it is separate from the things that exist. How is that?

I don't think it is seperate, although it may appear seperate from a certain perspective.

Recall the image I used last post of a light with rays issuing forth from it; are the rays truly seperate from the light? Where do they begin and the Source end? Yet they may come and go, and the source remains.

Facing away from the source, the rays appear different and seperate. Facing the source, one realizes they are all connected.

Again I apologize if this is somewhat confused; as I've suggested earlier very likely it is because these ideas are somewhat confused!

...or perhaps it is simply because they are exactly that: ideas! :lol:

[Noway2Zero]

what is a light without the ray(s)?

what is a ray without a clear path?

[clyde]

Taeguk;

You wrote,
it is this limitless existence that allows for and underlys the suchness.
I would not phrase it that way, but rather: the Dharmakaya and suchness are one and the same. One does not cause the other to arise, but are mutually dependent occurrences. (See the Heart Sutra.)

You also wrote,
To discover more, one must be empty, silent, and still. Give oneself over to the unfolding. And I think, clyde, that whatever theoretical differences we may have we will completely agree on this point. :)
I rather expect that our views are similar though our expression and language may differ.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Taeguk]

clyde,

I rather expect that our views are similar though our expression and language may differ.

I expect so as well. :)

[sahyo]

existence seems to be "empty" of content; we cannot form a concept of it. Everything we can form a concept of is a particular expression or contraction of existence.




>>> Sekkyo asked one of his accomplished monks, "Can you take hold of empty space?"

"Yes, sir", he replied.

"Show me how you do it".

The monk stretched out his arm and clutched at empty space.

Sekkyo said: "Is that the way? But after all you have not got anything".

"What then", asked the monk, "is your way?"

The master straightway took hold of the monk's nose and gave it a hard pull, which made the latter exclaim: "Oh, oh, how hard you pull at my nose! You are hurting me terribly!"

"That is the way to have good hold of empty space", said the master. <<<

[clyde]

:)

[Taeguk]

Hi asheera!

:lol: That totally made my day!

Thanks :)

[sahyo]

thanking :)