|
|
Post by Angel One on Dec 26, 2003 22:55:46 GMT
I heard this little story once, lets see if I can remember it... There was a fox walking up to a river, trying to cross. he meets a scorpion, who cant swim. The scorpion also wants to cross the river, so he asks the fox for a lift accross on his back. The fox refuses, saying that the scorpion will sting him, but the scorpion says "why would I do that, then wed both drown" So the fox agrees to let the scorpion ride on his back. Halfway accross the river the scorpion stings the fox, and as they are both drowning, the fox says "Why did you sting me, now we're both going to die??" The scorpion replies "I had to sting you, its my nature" Now my question is... Can people, as in humans, sentient beings, defy their nature, and change who they are? Or are they stuck with definitions forever? Im not talking about the status quo here, im talking about the very essence of the soul. Can it be changed? Can a truly hateful person just change himself, if he really beliefs he can? Or conversely, can a loving person decide to become evil? I think so. I think with sentience comes the choice to define not just yourself, but the reality you live in. Thoughts anyone?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 27, 2003 3:03:27 GMT
Good question...
The human nature is different from other life forms. It's a little trickier. Our nature can change, rather, our nature is change in that we can consciously decide to act differently than we have previously. We have the ability to move from being hateful to being more loving. We have conscious decision making abilities.
But, don't hold your breath waiting for other's around you to change. Most of the time these changes happen very, very slowly. We try to look for the best in people, but we have to realize that most people are very conditioned and tainted by the material world. All we can really do is worry about ourselves and how we can act better.
Now, the true essence, the soul, cannot be changed. It's nature is transcendental. The soul is beyond good and evil.
It is PURE. There is no "good" residing on a material platform that isn't made impure by some level of "evil".
*Pure* goodness is a transcendental quality. This is the quality of the soul. People will act defiantly to this quality only out of ignorance of who they really are. The entity is bewildered, covered in many layers of lust. And this leads one to act according to the false ego. The false ego is the identity that builds itself off of the single idea that "I am this body".
To sum it all up:
1. The human species allows for one to change their nature, and to even come to understand their REAL nature as spirit-soul.
2. The true essence, soul's nature is PURE and unchanging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 27, 2003 5:36:24 GMT
agrees...but what if there is no soul?...what if what is pure or unchanging is the emptiness of all things? That what lives must die, and what dies must live? Maybe soul does nto exist, but what it is is just emptiness, without thought or feeling...what you experience then, maybe that will be your soul or true self? peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 27, 2003 6:40:02 GMT
agrees...but what if there is no soul?...what if what is pure or unchanging is the emptiness of all things? That what lives must die, and what dies must live? Maybe soul does nto exist, but what it is is just emptiness, without thought or feeling...what you experience then, maybe that will be your soul or true self? peace If there is no spirit then there is nothing. Because something does not come from nothing. We are inclined to accept that something/anything exists. If you don't accept that there is existence, then the conversation is over... actually, the conversation never happened. By denying the soul, one accepts themselves to know nothing, and thus becomes bewildered as to how this material something came about. Not to mention that one cannot really *know* that one knows nothing, if they know nothing to begin with. Agnosticism is a b*tch! We have **something** before us, but yet we deny greater something beyond it. And we accept that something can come from nothing. Fact remains: Nothing is evolved as a consequent that is not involved as an antecedent. The soul is the life. All things living are spirit-soul. If there is no soul then there is no life. Emptiness is a lacking quality. If the soul is a lacking quality, then what is it's opposing quality of substance? If your answer is matter, then how did this substance of matter come about from the very lack of itself?? Man, I could go on and on... |
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 27, 2003 16:10:01 GMT
wel, I'm justr saying why does there have to be a soul? What if there is no soul? What if what is pure and unchanging is just what is our real self as you said, but it is just without what our mind has been made upto be untill now by impact that society and ideals, religions had on us. How do you know that there is a soul unless you have been dead yet? And I do not remember my death or my "past" life, energy never dies yet it changes shape...maybe soul exists, but at the same time it might not. What I know as true, is that right now, I just woke up and as all men have to do, I gotta go to bathroom. Following the flow of life, I think that is who we are. Na livinh in the moment, that way I can live with what you call soul or source of all...mabe consciouisness or soul is not just assigen dto one body or one person, butit is universal and everywhere, maybe soul is not what you think it is. Maybe soul is universe itself. There is no time, no limit, maybe that's the nature of soul. Are you familiar with blind men and elephant story? Where these two blind men, are arguing over who they're right. One touch the elephant's nose, and say, this is a snake, another touch its leg and say this is a pig. Maybe that's what we are doing. peace |
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 27, 2003 17:07:59 GMT
wel, I'm justr saying why does there have to be a soul? What if there is no soul? What if what is pure and unchanging is just what is our real self as you said what is pure and unchanging is our real self. That real self is called "spirit-soul". but it is just without what our mind has been made upto be untill now by impact that society and ideals, religions had on us. The mind is not the soul. Nor has my mind made up the soul. How do you know that there is a soul unless you have been dead yet? One does not know the soul by being dead. One knows the soul by being ALIVE. And I do not remember my death or my "past" life, energy never dies yet it changes shape...maybe soul exists, but at the same time it might not. You not remembering your past life is meaningless. Tell me exactly what you were doing on April 26th, 1997 at 4:53 pm. Can you remember the details? If your soul doesn't exist then you aren't talking to me right now. What I know as true, is that right now, I just woke up and as all men have to do, I gotta go to bathroom. Following the flow of life, I think that is who we are. Na livinh in the moment, that way I can live with what you call soul or source of all...mabe consciouisness or soul is not just assigen dto one body or one person, butit is universal and everywhere, maybe soul is not what you think it is. Maybe soul is universe itself. There is no time, no limit, maybe that's the nature of soul. The soul is assigned to each person. There is also The Supersoul, which is universal and all-pervading. We are all part and parcel of The Supreme Soul. Though, we still have our individual identities. I am not all-pervading. I am only conscious of a very small, particular body. The universe itself is a material manifestation, this cannot be spirit-soul. The nature of the soul is transcendental. It is above the limits of time. Are you familiar with blind men and elephant story? Where these two blind men, are arguing over who they're right. One touch the elephant's nose, and say, this is a snake, another touch its leg and say this is a pig. Maybe that's what we are doing. peace This may be what you are doing. I am not doing this for two reasons: 1. I know that by the simple fact that I am self-conscious, I exist. And this is spirit-soul. 2. I do not concoct these philosophies of soul. I receive the knowledge from The Supreme Soul. |
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 27, 2003 17:46:34 GMT
Where I was at that moment of time is irrelevant. Very interesting idea although, it is at the moment, I believe is impossible to prove, but I do agree with it. The interesting thing is buddhism also says that theres two part of us, and one part dies when we die, and other part moves on with all the experience or karma of this life. Universal law applies to all, what lives must die, and what happens always has some sort of a cause. Maybe you're right but then again maybe you aren't...always will face some people challenging your idea, what you believe to be true. I always argue with my scientist friend about existance of soul, and he is convinced that soul does not exist because science itself is based on facts, and facts say that soul doesn't exist, pretty dogmatic wouldn't you say? He says our thoughts and feelings are just electrical impulses in the brain and when our brain dies, we die also. And he is convinced that this is truth, just as you are. So how can you tell me you're not one of the blind men, when you refuse to see outside your ideas...or is it facts?
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 27, 2003 18:13:25 GMT
The proof of soul is in existence.
That which lives must LIVE. Not die!
You have the phrase wrong. It should say:
That which is *born* must also die.
Facts don't say that the soul is non-existent. He (your friend) simply cannot see how the facts lead to the existence of spirit-soul. And he *chooses* not to accept the soul based on his own ignorance. He is not alone here.
I do not base reality purely on my material experience. For me to do this would be very puffed up of me. I have no experiential authority in these matters. Your friend seems to think that he can conclude facts based on an experience of lacking quality...
I have had the Supreme Fact, the Supreme Quality passed down to me by The Supreme Authority. I accept it.
There is no knowledge that is not required to be accepted. Everything is based on a premise of existence. The material scientists accept, on some level, that they exist and that others exist as well.
I do not accept existence on some level. I accept existence on the highest, most supreme level. I can do this by reason of the endless contradictions derived of only accepting existence to a certain degree...
By denying existence persisting without cessation ultimately concludes non-existence as it's (existence') source.
Once again, something does not come from nothing. There isn't even any material experience we have to conclude this falsehood as being true.
I have actually explained all this before. All your questions have been answered. You will make the decision to accept one thing or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 27, 2003 19:34:40 GMT
;D that which live must die also. Isn't that a fact also? But I like your way of thinking, and I agree to some extent, but what I do not agree is how you emphasize too much on soul and it comes off as youa re making it sound as something objective. Living closer to source, soul or whatever is joy in its purest form, joy in existance, for you are then awake. So try more of . peace |
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 27, 2003 19:51:10 GMT
;D that which live must die also. Isn't that a fact also? No. That statement is illogical. Life and death are not opposites. Birth and death are opposites that persist, always together. With birth there is death. With death there is birth. Life is LIFE. Life does not necessarily constitute birth or death. But, the dualistic symptom arises upon falling into this material world. But I like your way of thinking, and I agree to some extent, but what I do not agree is how you emphasize too much on soul and it comes off as youa re making it sound as something objective. Living closer to source, soul or whatever is joy in its purest form, joy in existance, for you are then awake. So try more of . peace Truth is objective. There are different kinds of joy. Some joy is a product of material sense gratification. In this case, the joy is temporary and not worth seeking. Then there is JOY derived of service to The Supreme Lord. This joy is eternal. It is forever nectarean. |
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 28, 2003 1:32:12 GMT
yes, that was the joy I'm talking about, and why do you say supreme lord? It's getting scary...lol.
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Marquis on Dec 28, 2003 1:34:20 GMT
Truth is joy, in case of existance...because if people lived as who they really are, then there is joy, for truth in existance is joy in its purest form.
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 28, 2003 5:48:01 GMT
yes, that was the joy I'm talking about, and why do you say supreme lord? It's getting scary...lol. peace Why is it getting scary when I refer to God? Is something wrong with the term "Supreme Lord"? |
|
|
|
Post by Angel One on Dec 28, 2003 13:16:34 GMT
Not at all, but you just have to accept that their are people who dont follow your beliefs thats all. Call god what you want tho, thats your right. You mean the Christian lord Jesus right? |
|
|
|
Post by Vaisnava on Dec 28, 2003 19:57:45 GMT
Not at all, but you just have to accept that their are people who dont follow your beliefs thats all. Call god what you want tho, thats your right. You mean the Christian lord Jesus right? No. Yeshua is not The Supreme Lord. The reason I used the term "Supreme Lord" is because If I use a name people may not accept that. But have it your way... KRSNA |
|
