Do you believe in souls?

Where does a "belief" come from if its not forced into existence by an "experience". If that experience is powerful enough it creates its own conclusions, contains its own values, forces its own tidal wave because we cannot conceive of resisting something which renders meaning to our very existence here. A belief can be more fundamental than a fact to one's well-being. And often when we find the shoe fits, we even incorporate facts and external truth into the very fabric of a belief . I should amend this to say "external truth as its understood at the time". Also, what's interesting, is how we often delineate beliefs, painting them with metaphors of reality and also conversely, describing Reality by it's opposite texture. It all comes together but "experience" (and I can't think of another word) is it's point of impact, it's incipience. That which contains the valuable ores for redistribution. It's therefore valid to think of the world as illusion when the mind plays with its realities!

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Are you suggesting that his memory of a delicious cup of coffee is epistemologically problematical, that it may be a delusion?

No I am not.

Quote:

That might be considered a step toward Buddhism. Horrors!

See above.

0 Replies

Not Too Swift wrote:

Where does a "belief" come from if its not forced into existence by an "experience".

Most are simply pulled out of thin air...and have absolutely nothing to do with experience.

Some theists say: "I believe in Heaven; but I do not believe in Hell." (Which really is, "I believe a place called heaven exists; and I believe there is no place that is Hell.")

0 Replies

Asherman

Let's get a bit more specific:

Earlier, you wrote:

Quote:

How many times do we have to answer this? In the sense you seem to mean, transmigration of souls, NO. You don't have a soul/self now, nor will you have one later. Thats all illusory. Nada, nothing. Let go of your attachment to the idea of self, and separateness of being, and things will be much easier.

Tell us specifically how you experienced this....and how you determined that you are not deluding yourself.

(By the way--I'm playing golf this morning and spending the afternoon and evening in the City...so I probably will not be able to respond until tomorrow...although I will try to get to this between activities.)

0 Replies

Frank,

Thats a different conversational exchange. Goldbars has repeatedly queried what the Buddhist take is on reincarnation. He can't seem to grasp the difference between reincarnation and the transmigration of souls.

In that conversation with Goldbars, I'm not speaking from personal experience/knowledge, because that isn't I think what he's asking for. Buddhist religious texts are the source of my comments, a few of which (in acknowledged good translation from Pali and Sanskrit texts) I've posted for Goldbars edification.

He also seems to be confused about how Buddhism is divided into Schools and sects. My comments there are drawn from multiple sources, some of which go back to my graduate work in Oriental Philosophy and Religion. I think I've also cited for Goldbars a number of books on the subject.

In replying to Goldbars a different sort of knowledge is involved. Personal experience does play apart, after all "I" have spent years studying the subject in academia. However, in these instances my information is derived from others so a different order of "belief" in the accuracy prevails. I still think the "knowing" is backed by a pretty high-order of belief. The texts I'm speaking from are widely regarded as authoritative by graduate faculties in comparative religion and courses in Buddhism. They are there for anyone to read. The fundamental doctrines, especially those dating from (or near) the time of the Historical Buddha are contained in the Pali canon, and it is primarily from those that I've insisted that Buddhism denies the existence of a "soul", and hence the transmigration of souls is an absurdity. Even that statement, as proper as I believe it is from long study, is conditioned by detailing the doctrinal drift evident in some Buddhist sects and schools, along with some discussion of how Buddhism came to split along the lines we see today.

All in all, I don't think I'd have any trouble at all in defending my comments if they were part of a dissertational challenge for my doctorate, instead of an internet reply to a layman.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Frank,

Thats a different conversational exchange. Goldbars has repeatedly queried what the Buddhist take is on reincarnation. He can't seem to grasp the difference between reincarnation and the transmigration of souls.

In that conversation with Goldbars, I'm not speaking from personal experience/knowledge, because that isn't I think what he's asking for. Buddhist religious texts are the source of my comments, a few of which (in acknowledged good translation from Pali and Sanskrit texts) I've posted for Goldbars edification.

He also seems to be confused about how Buddhism is divided into Schools and sects. My comments there are drawn from multiple sources, some of which go back to my graduate work in Oriental Philosophy and Religion. I think I've also cited for Goldbars a number of books on the subject.

In replying to Goldbars a different sort of knowledge is involved. Personal experience does play apart, after all "I" have spent years studying the subject in academia. However, in these instances my information is derived from others so a different order of "belief" in the accuracy prevails. I still think the "knowing" is backed by a pretty high-order of belief. The texts I'm speaking from are widely regarded as authoritative by graduate faculties in comparative religion and courses in Buddhism. They are there for anyone to read. The fundamental doctrines, especially those dating from (or near) the time of the Historical Buddha are contained in the Pali canon, and it is primarily from those that I've insisted that Buddhism denies the existence of a "soul", and hence the transmigration of souls is an absurdity. Even that statement, as proper as I believe it is from long study, is conditioned by detailing the doctrinal drift evident in some Buddhist sects and schools, along with some discussion of how Buddhism came to split along the lines we see today.

All in all, I don't think I'd have any trouble at all in defending my comments if they were part of a dissertational challenge for my doctorate, instead of an internet reply to a layman.

Gimme a break, will ya, Asherman.

Doctoral dissertations; MENSA!

C'mon...you are a participant in an Internet forum...and there are garbage men claiming to be movie stars. Save that stuff...no matter how true any of it is...for someone who really cares.

I have no idea of what you think a "high order of belief" is...but in my opinion, the notion itself is a joke.

All I can do is to guess on this stuff...and my guess is that you have absolutely no better idea of what the Ultimate REALITY of existence is than I do...or the garbage man who pick up my trash.

This "personal revelation" cop out is baloney.

And in my opinion, when you deserted agnosticism for the belief system of the Buddhists...you did yourself and logic a huge disservice.

Going to New York City right now.

We'll talk more.

0 Replies

Actually, Frank I didn't finish my doctoral work. It would have taken too long, and then it would have taken years to get tenure. I shifted instead to law, and then to work on a Masters. What do I care whether you think I'm a garbage man (some of whom are members of MENSA, and failed doctoral students). The quality of my thought and writing is what it is. I suppose that a high school dropout (which, BTW, I also was) could mimic higher education. Having the good fortune(?) to be born with an efficient mind is nothing to brag about, after all one can't choose their genetic inheritance. My educational attainments are another matter. I worked hard for many years to pile up knowledge and degrees, and feel some satisfaction that the time and effort was well spent. I'm retired and comfortable, and so have no need to impress folks, especially those encountered on the internet. Neither am I going to be coy and overly modest.

You asked how I knew the information I gave Goldbars. I told you the source of my knowledge. If you didn't care, then why ask?

You are the one who began talking about knowing as a degree, or level of belief. I thought that a reasonable way to think of how we typify belief as knowing. If this is notion is a "joke" to you, then are we to infer that you are joking a lot of the time?

When people have had a "personal revelation", they are not guessing. Their belief that the experience is valid and real is, to them, a matter of knowing. They can not prove it in any objective way to anyone else. You believe/guess accounts of those experiences is "baloney". If a person has not had a "personal revelation", or "Awakening Experience" then, of course, they can only believe, or disbelieve, in it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Most are simply pulled out of thin air...and have absolutely nothing to do with experience.

and whenever the quality of air changes you get another "belief infection". That's what I would call letting the air do all the thinkin! I think I'd rather depend on Yogi Bear!

0 Replies

NTS, You can depend on Yogi Bear. My choice is Santi Clause. Wink

0 Replies

On second thought, maybe Peanuts should be my choice. Wink

0 Replies

Damn wind keeps shifting; I now pick Superman.

0 Replies

actually I always leaned toward Yogi's sidekick and secretary Boo Boo.

Boo Boo I'm sure, would have a lot of comments to make to everybody regarding this subject. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Frank:

I agree that you are not a wise ass. And after rereading my post - I was confused. Wink

So let's try again.

Part of your knowledge that you cannot know about God comes from logic. It is logically possible and it seems to make sence to you.

The evidence for this knowledge comes from experience - or rather a lack thereof. When I asked before whether there was a criterion that you could entertain that would allow you to see an experience as religious - you stated that there was not. Thus as you experience things now - you never look to God as an explaining force. Thus, if you had a 'miraculous' recovery from cancer - you would state it was a rapid remission and never look to God as experience.

Thus, you are having experiences - and are basing your agnosticism on these experiences. This is not a certainty - you would have to allow that you might be wrong - and you are basing your religious beliefs on experience - something you will not allow believers to do.

I am stating that I believe that you are violating your own rules and are internally incoherent.

So the real crux of this - and I am very excited to hear what you have to say - is how your 'knowledge' that there is not a knowable God - is not experience based.

CI:

I agree that drinking coffee and feeling better after you pray are very different things. However, for those that have seen Jesus (or Buddha - or Ghinesh) appear before them - how can we state that a cup of coffee is any less real than this religious experience?

It seems that the only critereon that is being employed is that it is rare. This would lead me to believe that if I made one full court basketball shot in my life - it must have been ambigious experiences (that truly do not count) because it never happened again.

TTF

p.s. CI - I have been a fan a Speed Racer... doesn't make him God - or make him appear to me and other believers. Not that that would not be cool. Wink

I posited earlier that religious experience is subjective (not relative - but subjective).

0 Replies

I'm not saying it's any less real to the perceiver. All I'm saying is that there's no way to verify personal religious' experience by others. We're not even sure that the perceiver is having hallucinations or not, because observers can not see the mental activity of the perceiver.

0 Replies

Right, C.I.

0 Replies

JLNobody so will there be future lives for false-selves?

0 Replies

Goldbarz, I don't know what connection you are making--to a previous statement of mine? Gold Barz
You ask:
"JLNobody so will there be future lives for false-selves."

Do you remember my earlier response to this question? I argued that "I" (ego-self) will not be reborn, because it doesn't even exist now. I said that IN A SENSE there may be a form of reincarnation, that the cosmos is continuously giving rise to organic bioforms. They are not "me" (little self) but they are a kind of "me" in the sense of my (and your) true cosmic Self. So, perhaps we can talk about a kind of Cosmic incarnation (but in addition to "flesh/carne", there are many other inorganic and chemical forms, and who knows what else that is continuously brought into existence). In a word, then, there may be INCARNATION, but not RE-INCARNATION in the sense that little me is being reborn. But big me (the Cosmos) is continuously reborn. Oy, you're giving me such a headache!

0 Replies

From dust to dust; we shall return.

0 Replies

You sounded like a good catholic (on Ash Wednesday) until you said we shall return. Laughing

0 Replies

so there are no future lives?

buddha clearly believed in rebirth and kept talking about his past and future lives....so what the hecks going on

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know