English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Nature subjects man to the laws of changing matter, but he subjects himself to the laws of thought. By this means he makes himself a member of a higher order than the one to which he belongs through his body. This order is the spiritual. The spiritual is as different from the soul as the soul is from the body. As long as only the particles of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen that are in motion in the body are spoken of, we do not have the soul in view. Soul life begins only when within the motion of these particles the feeling arises, `I taste sweetness,” or, “I feel pleasure.”

2007-09-16 18:58:18 · 20 answers · asked by Icy Gazpacho 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

I am apathetic agnostic by the way.

2007-09-16 19:24:45 · update #1

I have great pity for you John D ~ are you feeling so insecure that you must attack people?

2007-09-16 19:31:04 · update #2

20 answers

i disagree with you
the soul can be brighter or duller according to how much energy it has developed thought is very complex and includes feelings and beliefs as well as maths and language
.... conscious unconscious etc

2007-09-16 19:01:33 · answer #1 · answered by walter e 6 · 2 1

The feelings you mentioned are basically bio chemical in nature and thus belong to physical domain.Since you presume that a soul has to be beyond physicality of our body,there is nothing non physical there to sustain or hold it.The idea of spirituality can only be accepted if it's presence is attributed to higher domains of our minds(distinct from brain).Spirituality is non religious but can be combined with it or any such other belief systems.The problem area is the SOUL and we have no clues about it so far.Hope you would like to dwell upon the whole concept again.

2007-09-17 02:16:51 · answer #2 · answered by brkshandilya 7 · 1 0

This is one of those highly debated questions there seems to be two camps. One says that there is higher order called consciousness, but its just an illusion and there are only the particles doing their thing. The other says that although one can not prove scientifically that consciousness exists in a real sense it does. The feeling is there, the flash of light is there. I believe a mix of the two, and both explanations are valid when one considers this...that reality is: ALL consciousness and that matter and the little particles are the illusion not the other way around. But one cannot prove it, one can only feel it directly and make conclusions from that direct knowledge that supersedes logic and faith.

2007-09-17 02:11:49 · answer #3 · answered by justin l 5 · 2 0

I think John D is just a true believer... lucky him. My faith has been rocked over time and it is still there but I am more spiritual now than religious. I do not know if there is any logic in the statement you let us read... I believe than one can not exist without the other or at least it would be very difficult. Has humans we do need both. I am sure some of us live without paying attention or even knowing we have a soul.

2007-09-24 22:57:32 · answer #4 · answered by Derek 4 · 0 0

No, not really. The assumption is made that self-awareness is a different order of thought than simple attraction to food or avoidance of potential pain, which can be shown to correspond to electrical pulses travelling along the nervous system.

Experiments have demonstrated abstract thought and tool-making abilities among some birds, and a self-concept among apes and monkeys. Humans are more sophisticated but their "spiritual" thought is not verifiably different in kind from concrete, primitive thought.

The phrase " within the motion of these particles" is meaningless. It is the motion of particles, notably electrons, that IS the thought. As the controlling mechanism of our central nervous system, our brain can encode and decode these impulses, rendering them as thoughts. But there is nothing underneath them. Every kind of thought, regardless of subject, involves neurons firing signals to each other. The statement is poetic but not logical.

2007-09-17 02:23:48 · answer #5 · answered by skepsis 7 · 2 0

I think that your premise of what a soul is seems to be a little off. It just dawned on me that there is a way to prove the soul's existence. Our soul has portals in our body, called Chakras. They have a natural energy movement of circular motion. When you rub it in the wrong direction your body becomes a bit weaker, and when rubbed in the right direction you remain the same, or even stronger. All you need is the knowledge of where one is and a partner. Have your partner hold their arm out straight at their side, and push it down. Your partner needs to keep in mind how much pressure it took to push it down. One of your chakras is at your diaphragm. Rub it one way and push your partners arm down exactly as before, see what happens. Then do the same only rub your chakra in the opposite direction, once again push down on their arm, and note what happens. One of the times you push down the arm, should be more difficult. That means you are rubbing your soul portal, or chackra, in the wrong direction. You can do this with sugar as well. Just hold the sugar on your chakra instead of the rotational rubbing. I'd totally forgotten about this until now. Let me know what happens if you don't mind.
Blessed Be

2007-09-25 00:37:57 · answer #6 · answered by Linda B 6 · 1 0

I think animals too have thoughts. So are they
also highest? Like animals, If we are also busy in
gathering food (i.e wealth) by using our
intellectual faculties, then what is the difference
between them & us.
Besides thoughts , man also gets reasoning.
Therefore , by reasoning he can choose the path
best suitable to him. But alas , he spends most of
his life in only food (wealth) gathering.
Most of mankind chooses to ignore the higher path
available given by those who went beyond the human
capabilities (i.e. Buddha) and waste their life.
At your level, you feel superior
to animals. Can there be a state superior to
human awareness and understanding?
See this if you want to know what maximum
can be attained :
http://www.vipassana.com/canon/digha/dn2.php
Buddha has recommended the path as below :
http://www.vipassana.com/canon/digha/dn22.php
Even at his level of understanding, man is considered
as asleep by Buddha , and he claims
himself to be awakened and tells us that :
Following the chain of thoughts is not the solution.
Rather , what is needed is to
STOP.
Stop first body movement.
Stop speaking, seeing, hearing, smelling,tasting.
Stop the emotions by controlling sensations.
Stop the stream of thought process.
Stop desiring.
Be still & wait in this thoughtless state
and now you are ready to penetrate that
which is beyond.
And when you know that is beyond
you will start living in it and then
the physical will become irrelevant.

Therefore , 'thinking' ability is actually a
disability to overcome which prevents us
from looking beyond. But this disability
is associated with several disabilities such as
emotions & desires of bodily organs ,
which also need simultaneous attention.

2007-09-17 02:33:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Telling others who you are is that going to change things.
Are you a self made prophet and such as the rest are claiming such God-Men or non-God-Men.

Notice how when you play the flute the mice come out of their holes?

2007-09-24 23:02:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would call that basic awareness and emotion, not a soul.

When it comes down to it, everything in our body is chemical in natural, even our thoughts are just electrical impulses firing from one neural synapse to another.

I would not say that we subject ourselves to thought. Can we really prevent thought? Can we stop ourselves from thinking?

2007-09-17 02:04:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It's an interesting thought, though strangely worded, not easy to read.

If I understand it correctly, the idea is that God must exist because we humans -think-! Kind of a one-up on old Descartes--'I think therefore God is'. 8^)

But I don't make the connection. Intellect is not proof of 'spirit' and 'spirit' is not proof of God.

2007-09-17 02:06:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You make unsustainable leaps when you connect spirituality to the concept of abstract thought, which is far more accurately described as "consciousness."

2007-09-17 02:10:51 · answer #11 · answered by damlovash 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers