Do you believe in the soul
-
93,
I recognise the nephesh as a soul (something supra-physical and not really part of the 'mind'), but I'm not sure it endures past physical death. The neshamah would, by definition, because it's supra-personal. The ruach ... I don't know what I could sign onto as a personal opinion.
Either way, I can see a <i>discussion</i> here, but no basis for a poll. I'd have to vote for at least three of your options.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
My preferred choice isn't even there. We don't have a soul *and * we reincarnate.
Dan
-
One of my favorite Vivekananda quotes,
"If there is a God we must see him; if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite."
- Raja Yoga, page 10 (Revised, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center edition)
Almight Creator, I'd like to contrast this attitude with "No, no such thing". I say, "No, I do not believe in a soul" (thinking of soul in the colloquial sense). But I do not say, "No such thing". I make a negative assertion when I say I do not believe in a soul, but I make a positive one when I say souls do not exist. The former makes no assertion about the state of the reality, only of my knowledge - I have no reason to believe that the cosmos is a place in which souls exist. The later makes a firm assertion about the state of reality - The cosmos is a place in which souls absolutely do not exist.
-
This was my fault, and I owe both you and Tarot an apology - here offered.
I meant to reply to his post and accidentally hit one of the extra buttons available only to forum moderators - so that my post overwrote his rather than responding to it. (By the same accident, it also misattributed the quote - the original is his line. The "how" would be a long explanation, but that's what happened.)
Again, I am very sorry. Tarot's original post is unrecoverable and I'm sure he put some serious thought into it. At least I wanted to get him off the hook for seeming to misquote you.
@Lizbeth said
"
@ar said
"
@Lizbeth said
"The soul if the word must be used may exist, but it is not a *thing *at all; it is just that pattern."
"May I ask where you got this quote from me? I do not recognize this as my writing.
My reference was to the soul as energy.
Lizbeth"
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
@zeph said
"So why don't we start the discussion by nailing down what you mean by soul?"
What soul? I see none.
Reincarnate?
Into another life?
No birth, no death, no life ending for another to begin.
You and I are not two lives."All of manifest existence is one life" would be better said, but even that falls from the mark.
I hope you'll all excuse my previous dodging of your questions, Jim and Zeph, I was merely curious about the existence, in this cross- section of the seeking community, of the belief in some kind of concept of a "soul" and/or "reincarnation", however they may define it. I remember you, Jim, said a few months ago that [Soror Meral ?] said that you had to believe in reincarnation to be a thelemite. You said, I believe "I don't necessarily agree with that". I certainly don't agree with that, but that is a question for each of us to answer for hirself.
Also, your posts to me of late, Jim, seem a little short. Perhaps I take you wrong, but if I have raised your ire, I apologize. We are all brothers here. I have meant no insult.
-
@Almighty Creator said
"I hope you'll all excuse my previous dodging of your questions, Jim and Zeph, I was merely curious about the existence, in this cross- section of the seeking community, of the belief in some kind of concept of a "soul" and/or "reincarnation", however they may define it."
It's not a matter of forgiveness, it's a matter of it being nearly a flame! Considering that - just to pick two common meanings of dozens - whether "soul" means Nephesh or Neshemah or Yechidah makes a huge difference (and people make use of it to mean all of these and more). So failure to define the term (and for the motives you cite) just amounts to pot stirring.
I finally answered it by presuming you were asking if we acknowledged some sort of nonmaterial aspect of existence. It doesn't matter what I mean by the term or how I might use it - if one is to answer a question, one must first know what the question means!
-
@Almighty Creator said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
@zeph said
"So why don't we start the discussion by nailing down what you mean by soul?"
What soul? I see none.
Reincarnate?
Into another life?
No birth, no death, no life ending for another to begin.
You and I are not two lives."All of manifest existence is one life" would be better said, but even that falls from the mark."
I can dig that; it's the monistic approach. "Successive incarnations" is a more useful term, in my mind, than "reincarnation". Still, a lack of soul here nevertheless indicates a particular definition of the word. This idea of non-reincarnation due to the lack of any duality whatsoever does not preclude, for instance, Yechidah, or probably even Neshamah; both of which are kinds of souls. It doesn't even preclude Ruach or Nephesh, for that matter, even if those souls have nowhere to go beyond oblivion; neither does it preclude James Brown. If you aren't going to define the term, then the poll is as useful in my eyes as the question "Do you believe in fribbledynoops?"
I don't know if Soror Meral or anybody said "that you had to believe in reincarnation to be a thelemite"; I do know with certainty, however, that it's an untrue statement.
93 93/93
Love and L.V.X.
z -
I would like to cut into this interesting discussion with my own take on the soul and reincarnation, and I'm sorry if this is a repeat, because I have a vague feeling I've written this before in some thread.
As I see it, The All/God/whatthouwilt is the only active force in existence. As it extends it reshapes, and smaller reflections of the matrix it radiates (the Tree of Life blueprint matrix) expands in different dimnensions/proportions, depending on the circumstances of their specific environment, and as the only active force moves through them, they are animated, and, if they measure up to the correct alignment (the one the force itself was made to be used as: ToL), they come alive as individuals with different personalities, none of which have any individual life themselves, for only The All/God/whatthouwilt is life.
And so as we travel between incarnations, what happens is that, since the universe seems to be completely continuous and thusly chain reactions are the only possible courses of events, we grow into new shapes, perfecting ourselves until we are in alignment with the Source Code (= SC = StarCraft; hence my avatar, obviously!).The work of Initiation supports this attitude, because the work goes from Malkuth to Kether as though what Malkuth contains is a cruder form of what Yesod does and so on, so that Kether holds all the information and an Adept fits itself into one/none Sephira in the end, which of course is The All. Right?
It also goes well with the idea that only the Supernal Triad survives "death", because what happens is simply that the present incarnation matrix has served its "soul purpose" and is now obsolete and thrown behind like a static qliphoth, so that a new task for the aspiring part of Divinity can begin, rebooted and ready. It's only logical to assume that it would be idiotic to throw away a part of the Divine Plan that has gotten this far - especially if we see it all as vibration with the intention of bringing about the Divine synchronicity/melody/resonance/crystallization, where the parts would do best to continue spinning continuously until they find the correct Key - so that's why I believe in re-incarnation. -
Malaclypse, if "The All/God/whatthouwilt is the only active force in existence", then what is it which reincarnates?
For that matter, if "The All/God/whatthouwilt is the only active force in existence", then what is it which "perfect[s] ourselves until we are in alignment with the Source Code"?
-
@zeph said
"Malaclypse, if "The All/God/whatthouwilt is the only active force in existence", then what is it which reincarnates?
For that matter, if "The All/God/whatthouwilt is the only active force in existence", then what is it which "perfect[s] ourselves until we are in alignment with the Source Code"?"
Thanks for taking interest zeph!
The pattern that is this individual dissipates and is finally broken up, either due to external or internal circumstances (car crash or negative thinking/old age), but since - and this is why I mentioned continuity - things are continuous, the affinity the pattern of this lifetime has spawned will by sheer causality produce the next incarnation in an upgraded fashion. We are, as I see it, pending between individuality and Godhead (when we are dead we are inert and the only thing that moves us is the matrix of The All, not the analogous extension of individuality), so going from one life to the next means a stop at the Godhead office from where the entire universe and one's alignment in comparison to it can be seen, why the specific Godhead aspect thinks to iteslf, "ah, that's where I should go next" and continues into another reality tunnel called life.
I see Godhead as a carrier wave that includes all frequencies in the universe, spinning on the entire register, and an individual is the focus on a specific one. The frequency's specificity is - since this matrix is eternal, continuous and goes full circle - not extinguished as such, but it's not being animated after the soul has moved on, because the soul is the alignment making animation possible.
So, God is the idea of the force that drives everything and motion, not matter, is all that is, but patterns will crystallize of motion alone, so patterns like souls (small aspects of the Godhead idea) or bodies and other structures will form and represent things. No matter, because they're only reflections of the One idea of motion itself, in which everything else can manifest; not of themselves, but only as ideas which ARE Godhead. -
@zeph said
"I can dig that; it's the monistic approach."
Yes. Yet not the monistic which is the opposite of dual.
The one which has no opposite...But if there is not two to differentiate then how is there a “Yechidah” as distinct from “Neshamah”?
Oh, and fribbledynoops is a very sacred topic, not to be spoken of lightly my friend, especially on open forum!
