What is a Soul?

seattlegal said:
Not necessarily. Soul=self might actually be an instance of interdependent co-arising. It might be worth investigating from that standpoint.
Click to expand...
If self is instance of interdependent co-arising, then isn't it just part of the phenomenal world of forms? Isn't that the Buddhist doctrine of No-self?
 
seattlegal said:
Not necessarily. Soul=self might actually be an instance of interdependent co-arising. It might be worth investigating from that standpoint.
Click to expand...

as the conversation is attempting to determine what a soul is by equating the soul to the self simply moves the conversation to attempting to determine what the self is and doesn't actually answer the OP as near as i can tell.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
as the conversation is attempting to determine what a soul is by equating the soul to the self simply moves the conversation to attempting to determine what the self is and doesn't actually answer the OP as near as i can tell.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

From dictionary.com:

soul·ful​
adj. Full of or expressing deep feeling; profoundly emotional.​
soul·less ​
adj. Lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling.​
self·ish​
–adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.​
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.​
selfless​
adjective showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others​
It would seem that soulfulness is characterized by the capacity for deep feeling, whereas selfishness is characterized by shallow feeling.

The common quality is feeling, the differences occurring with the placement and depth or shallowness of the feeling. I would suspect that tracking down feelings/emotion would be a good place to start if you want to track down the soul.
 
Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

seattlegal said:
I would suspect that tracking down feelings/emotion would be a good place to start if you want to track down the soul.
Click to expand...

so i can infer from this statement that you think the soul is an emotional state?

metta,

~v
 
seattlegal said:
No, that soul is somehow related to emotions, especially deep emotions.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that the Hindu tradition - which is big on soul - has no use for emotions at all and has specific methods for enforcing emotional diets.

I see emotions as an aspect of the empirical self (small 's').
 
Wasn't it St. Francis who said we are looking for that which is looking? My sense of "soul" is that it is "essence," but what is essence? It is not a thing. I have feelings, but I am not my feelings. I have sensations, but I am not my sensations. I have relationships but I am not my relationships. I say I am Earl but I am not Earl-but my name really is Earl.:D There are those occasions when that all drops away and I simply Am, with no "I" involved. There is simply a sense of suchness as the Buddhists might say which I mean by "amness."In that state of no state everything seems co-extensive to me though there are no boundaries of extension. That state of pristine awareness also seems to be "essential" and seems somehow related to what some may mean by soul. But also in that state of awareness when I am in my essense and it may seem to be my essence and the same time it seems to me to be the same essence shared by all things. It is uncreated. All that is created is impermanent and therefore has no substantial existence. The created is graspable, the uncreated is not. When we find "it" and begin to define it, we have slipped back into the created. One cannot define the innately indefinable. We cannot set time and space boundaries around the non-spatial and atemporal. We cannot thingify it. We cannot "create" it. The stuff we usually take to be the marks of the existence of our "self" do not exist, yet I am. If we think we can find what we're looking for, we will probably be far off the mark, yet it is there. Well enough babbling for now as I am sure this response has sufficiently answered this vexing metaphysical question.:) Earl
 
Maybe I'm not quite done babbling. Guess you could say that what I just spoke of was the "being" aspect of soul but a number of traditions speak of soul more in the sense of becoming-coming into form. New Agers might say that soul is the "organ" that tranposes Spirit into incarnation, coming into form. In that regard I have found that whenever I have been in touch with essence it never fails to alter how I look at things and function. To the extent that that awareness alters me, it has served an incarnational function, a becoming. Now for the animists on this forum, you know if one were to equate essence with soul (as in my babbling about perceiving a shared essence) in a way then perhaps rocks, trees, and rivers have "soul" as well. Earl
 
earl said:
Wasn't it St. Francis who said we are looking for that which is looking? My sense of "soul" is that it is "essence," but what is essence? It is not a thing. I have feelings, but I am not my feelings. I have sensations, but I am not my sensations. I have relationships but I am not my relationships. I say I am Earl but I am not Earl-but my name really is Earl.:D There are those occasions when that all drops away and I simply Am, with no "I" involved. There is simply a sense of suchness as the Buddhists might say which I mean by "amness."In that state of no state everything seems co-extensive to me though there are no boundaries of extension.
Click to expand...
The experience that there is more to life than just dukkha.
That state of pristine awareness also seems to be "essential" and seems somehow related to what some may mean by soul.
Click to expand...
This is where discernment comes in: what is essential, and what is not? If you release everything, what will remain?
But also in that state of awareness when I am in my essense and it may seem to be my essence and the same time it seems to me to be the same essence shared by all things. It is uncreated. All that is created is impermanent and therefore has no substantial existence. The created is graspable, the uncreated is not. When we find "it" and begin to define it, we have slipped back into the created. One cannot define the innately indefinable. We cannot set time and space boundaries around the non-spatial and atemporal. We cannot thingify it. We cannot "create" it. The stuff we usually take to be the marks of the existence of our "self" do not exist, yet I am. If we think we can find what we're looking for, we will probably be far off the mark, yet it is there. Well enough babbling for now as I am sure this response has sufficiently answered this vexing metaphysical question.:) Earl
Click to expand...
The abode of the Four Sublime States?
 
I feel the intellect can give us a glimpse of the spiritual life inside ourselves, help us resist the exterior influences that blind us with passion and help us access thoughts about God that are totally new, unexpected and beyond our own capacity. The effect of these inspirations is to enable the soul to approach God beyond the material realm in pure consciousness where everything is one.
 
Courage said:
So in order for their doctrine to stand, there are two versions of Gospel and Truth, one Gospel and Truth believed by the early Church and Christians from AD33 till now. And another version believed by those advocating the 'mortal soul' and thus the message 'no Jesus Christ is needed' behind the scene.
Click to expand...
What you have going on in this thread is actually two conversations. One conversation is from the standpoint of a mortal soul and the other is from the standpoint of an immortal soul, but they are couched in the same words. The question posed unto each viewpoint is "What is a soul?" You can have two completely different groups hearing the same words but speaking a different language, so whether you say soul or self, or are talking about deep seated emotions or the spirit, the two groups often can both discuss it at the same time. Naturally you have assumed that anyone who disagrees with RC authority is the anti-Christ, but that is not related to the discussion at hand. Besides, you don't start with mortal or immortal soul to debunk the RC, you start with Christ.
 
To my perception the soul is the source of the inner light and is not simply deep emotions although it can give rise to deep emotions, which is where we can be tricked as to the source and the sign.

But I'm with the Hindus on this one insofar as the emotions can be faulty and lead us astray: witness the stirring jingoism of a national anthem intended to lead us to kill or maim our brothers.

qj
 
quakeyjase said:
To my perception the soul is the source of the inner light and is not simply deep emotions although it can give rise to deep emotions, which is where we can be tricked as to the source and the sign.

But I'm with the Hindus on this one insofar as the emotions can be faulty and lead us astray: witness the stirring jingoism of a national anthem intended to lead us to kill or maim our brothers.

qj
Click to expand...
Which national anthem do you refer to?

For example: Eidlewiess, is the Austrian national anthem...

Another is the alternate American anthem (that missed being the national anthem by a few votes) America the Beautiful...
 
Alex P said:
The nations were angry and your wrath has come. :)
Click to expand...

just browsing and saw that word nations ,

that brings this verse to my mind .

The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh;
Jehovah himself will hold them in derision.psalm 2;4


the nations have their plans but the most high will never fail​
Jehovah laughs at the boasting and confusion of the nations in their foolish course against him.


Jehovah is not concerned about any efforts of national rulers to establish their own sovereignty.


The second psalm continues:

"The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah himself will hold them in derision." (Psalm 2:4)
God goes ahead with his purpose as though these rulers are nothing.
He laughs at their impudence and holds them in derision. Let them boast about what they intend to do.
To Jehovah they are a laughingstock. He laughs at their futile opposition.


but this thread is about the soul

SORRY I HAVE DERAILED i am so bad :)
back to the soul



The connotations that the English "soul" commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers.










​
 
mee said:
nice one ,that is what the bible teaches .:)
Click to expand...
Mee you are right on the money. In Gen. when God created man in His image it said God made man out of the dust of the earth then the Lord breath life into man and he became a living soul. Yes anything that is living can be condsider a soul. a soul is just a living creature. Now the spirit is God given to every human being. This spirit is what makes us so special.This spirit is what separates us from the animals. This is the same spirit that unites with the Holy Spirit and give us power to do Gods will. When we die our soul is dead. the soul meaning us are dead. then the spirit goes home to God from where it came. In one of the Gosples at the moment of Jesus death it said he gave up His Spirit to God.

Darren
 
winner08 said:
When we die our soul is dead. the soul meaning us are dead. then the spirit goes home to God from where it came. In one of the Gosples at the moment of Jesus death it said he gave up His Spirit to God.
Click to expand...
Hi Darren,

Luke uses the "giving up the ghost" expression in a Old Testament kind of way to refer to death (see Genesis passages dealing with Abraham and Isaac).

In Acts, the same expression is used in reference to death. Again, this is the way it appears in the Old Testament.

There is nothing about the context of the various passages that mention "giving up the ghost" to suggest union with G-d.

It seems to me that the Bible is very unclear about what happens to the "soul" or "spirit" after death.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Hi Darren,

Luke uses the "giving up the ghost" expression in a Old Testament kind of way to refer to death (see Genesis passages dealing with Abraham and Isaac).

In Acts, the same expression is used in reference to death. Again, this is the way it appears in the Old Testament.

There is nothing about the context of the various passages that mention "giving up the ghost" to suggest union with G-d.

It seems to me that the Bible is very unclear about what happens to the "soul" or "spirit" after death.
Click to expand...

Netti-Netti- Hold on to that thought and give me a little time. I will find that scripture for you. I am almost positive I read that, I just can not remember where but I will find it for you. Now if I can't or if it is not in scripture I will most certianly admitt I was wrong and stand corrected. Give me a chance.

Thanks

Darren
 
winner08 said:
Netti-Netti- Hold on to that thought and give me a little time. I will find that scripture for you. I am almost positive I read that, I just can not remember where but I will find it for you. Now if I can't or if it is not in scripture I will most certianly admitt I was wrong and stand corrected.

Here it is.

Ecc 12:7 then the dust returns to the earth as it was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top