WHO WE ARE?? one or two

D

dhillon

Guest
dear members
who is our real self?? are we two,, mind body,, and soul?? or are we one,, only soul?? please give your oppinions
 
dear members
who is our real self?? are we two,, mind body,, and soul?? or are we one,, only soul?? please give your oppinions

Why stop at two?

Why not 7?

Or 13?

Or 1,307,285,304.693?
 
According to my belief system, we are seven.

Atman – spirit
Buddhi – Divine soul (nirvanic consciousness)
Manas – intelligence
Kamas – animal desires
Prana – the energy that ‘powers’ our ‘soul’
Linga Sarira – astral body
Sthula-Sarira – physical body

The three higher principles remain intact as they travel from reincarnation to reincarnation. The four lower aspects dissipate after death and do not travel on to the next reincarnation. (At death, the upper triangle disconnects from the lower triangle, and the upper triangle rests in Devachan - heaven - until it is ready for another reincarnation.)

individualization.gif
 
Namaste dhillon,

welcome to the forum.

i like CZ's answer... if you are going to give yourself 1 why not give yourself alot?? seems like if there were a million of me i would have a greater selection of character traits to exhibit and develop! ;)

in any event, i think the question is difficult to answer as posed given the assumptions and implications which must be made.

the short answer, then, is that we are ( )

metta,

~v
 
I say we are an individualised portion of the one that contains all...

in this plane we exist as walking talking Escher Sketches....
 
dear members
who is our real self?? are we two,, mind body,, and soul?? or are we one,, only soul?? please give your oppinions


"We?" Hmm...

(strains of back ground music provided by Queen)

We are the Taoists my friend.
And we'll keep wu wei-ing 'till the end.
We are the taoists, we are the taoists,
We love the useless,
For we are the taoists ...
of the Way..

[bows, runs behind curtain to avoid thrown rotting fruit.]
 
According to Sikhism,
We are now Two due to our Mann
and when Mann become stable we will become one.

In actual jeev is One, Ram ki Ansh. He himself is niraakar but he forget it. How, when where.....Learn Sikhism
 
Okay, where do I get definitions for these terms (I take it they are Punjabi)? I failed to find Mann, Jeev, niraakar on the sikh web and wiki. Suggestions?
 
According to my understanding of Buddhism, when we are unenlightened i.e have not seen through the nature of reality, we see ourselves as unique individuals.

When we are enlightened, we realized we are neither one nor many.

An analogy would be an electron probability cloud. Speaking of one or many electrons within the cloud is not appropriate. So neither monism nor pluralism can express the nature of reality.
 
Our ultimate reality is oneness...

Plurality exists merely to make our experience more enjoyable, it provides contrast.

Have you ever observed it, that if you are in the midst of much noise, the silence afterwards is much deeper, more profound? So it is with existence, always there exists contrasts to make the opposing pole more meaningful.

We can become a totality, or we can become a half - we can either accept the whole, or choose and create an inner civil war. It does not mean that both poles should be renounced, simply observe and enjoy both. Allow a centering of your own being, then watch in amusement as the reality keep going back and forth as a pendulum. Positive and negative will come to your body and mind, to your very spirit, but you are not any of these. You are simply a drop on the ocean moving with the current.

Only ego can choose, all choices are of mind. On one side, you can identify with the negative - asceticism and monasticism is of this extreme. They go on rejecting the material in favor of the spiritual. Then there are those that go on choosing the positive - they want to do good works in the world, helping everyone because it will allow them into heaven. In both cases, there is a deep denial of reality - reality is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It will create a misery because your ideal cannot be realized, existence cannot function without contrast.

If you accept the whole, you are on the path to the ultimate. Simply say yes to everything, ego wants to choose and now you are not choosing at all, you are accepting wherever the current carries you. Gradually, ego will stop, it is no longer being fed so it will die. When the lower self - atman - has died, there is only the higher self - brahman - remaining. Now you have arrived, now you have transcended maya.

Illusion can only exist through mind, and ego is the conclusions and choices of mind. When ego stops, mind no longer goes on pushing itself to the forefront. Mind functions as it should, a way to access brain, rather than its current use of perceiving reality. In Hindu texts, maya is illusion, and keeps us jailed within samsara. When this is transcended you are liberated.
 
According to my understanding of Buddhism, when we are unenlightened i.e have not seen through the nature of reality, we see ourselves as unique individuals.

When we are enlightened, we realized we are neither one nor many.

An analogy would be an electron probability cloud. Speaking of one or many electrons within the cloud is not appropriate. So neither monism nor pluralism can express the nature of reality.

Also true, because even within oneness, our experience will be relative to our location while these bodies still live.
 
I say we are an individualised portion of the one that contains all...

in this plane we exist as walking talking Escher Sketches....

We are as expressions which have forgotten our source, thus created individuality through identification with that expression.
 
According to my understanding of Buddhism, when we are unenlightened i.e have not seen through the nature of reality, we see ourselves as unique individuals.

When we are enlightened, we realized we are neither one nor many.

An analogy would be an electron probability cloud. Speaking of one or many electrons within the cloud is not appropriate. So neither monism nor pluralism can express the nature of reality.

Politically its all about human rights and religously the buddha was an enlightened man.
 
We are as expressions which have forgotten our source, thus created individuality through identification with that expression.

Yes well the un science center already said that we are one kind the human kind. The planet earth is from which the universe extends. Not the other way around. So human beings really are bigger than well you know life on other planets.

The source of life is good interactions , proper ones and not everyone should wear the same thing because each individual is different no matter what he ethnic background is.
 
"An analogy would be an electron probability cloud. Speaking of one or many electrons within the cloud is not appropriate. So neither monism nor pluralism can express the nature of reality." Very good, OAT.

Nearly all philosophies, nearly all religions accept the mind/matter ideal/material distinction as part of their ontology (real basic assumptions about what is). If you sit back and look at the experience you are having now (say looking at a beautiful sunset and composing a poem about it), the material things (or rather our perception of the material things) and the mind things are are inseparable.

It is perfectly analogous to quantum mechanics--the wave is a particle and the particle is a wave. Or better yet the potentiality can be seen as neither wave nor particle.

Reality is not so simple (to me at least).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt, radarmark
 
Back
Top