Questions about the Soul

[Christian von Lähr]

It would not be my perception that Religion, and in the case of this Thread such seems to be the Christian Church/Catholicism, ... and Philosophy, which for similar reasons seems to be Theosophy here in, ... are the same thing. Each has its purpose, means and a sense of coming from a 'right" position (and what belief system doesn't?), or "TRUTH."

If it hasn't been said before, Theosophy has an intent of [unifying] belief systems, providing some order based on the demonstrable evidence that there is some commonality behind all religions. I'll use a quote from the Christian side, to show this sentiment that there IS an inherent God Wisdom, and it is not just the province of Christianity, AT ALL.

St. Paul (Bible) says in (I Cor. ii, 6-7): “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world ... But we speak the wisdom of God (Greek ‘Theosophia’) in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory.”

St. Paul says in(I Cor. ii, 6-7): “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world ... But we speak the wisdom of God (Greek ‘Theosophia’) in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory.”

Seems to me Theosophical thinking, which could as easily be Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, ... and Christianity CAN go hand-in-hand.

 

[tychomorpheus]

>>> The definition of Soul which work best for me, is that it is Consciousness. As such, it exists on every plane of being of Cosmos. Of these planes, in the larger sense, human beings can only experience 5 ... out of a total of 49. This immediately confines our scope. <<<

Consciousness is a state. It might be regarded as a thing the soul "does" or "feels" after separation from God, in layman's terms. I don't know about the 49 dimensions, but i do think we are connected to the One that crosses all the planes. The confinement of the scope derives from both creation itself and from the fall. It is not impossible to overcome because we Are created in God's image.

>>>Of no real question is that human beings inhabit the physical body on the physical plane. It simply makes no sense for me, however, to try and equate, or identify our true Self with the physical body. After all, we only descend into a new physical body some 4 1/2 months prior to birth, and we typically inhabit it for no more than 100 years. What, then, IS IT which does the incarnating?<<<

Christianity actually proposes a trinity model where man as we see and experience it is "made" of body, spirit and soul. Personally i feel that the spirit *inhabits* the body. The soul is present into the body but it is not confined by the body. The event of incarnation is about both the spirit and the soul.

>>>Is it the astral body, with its accompanying aura, which accounts for the true root of our emotional life - both within (while ensouling) as well as outside of the physical body? I don't think so. At best, the emotional world is the plane of consciousness where a good portion of humanity is most active, studied by psychology yet still thoroughly misunderstood. The astral self certainly survives death, but it too, eventually undergoes a transition ... and the real person withdraws from it, just as he has withdrawn from the physical.<<<

Are you wondering if after death we still feel like ourselves? People who high emotional states because of sudden accidents or other traumatic / happy events often speak about how the moment "transformed" them. They "feel" like they are new. So our awareness of "how" we are is rather perishable. However our awareness about "who" we are lingers i believe after death. I think from the point of view of reincarnation that this explains the fact that deep inside people always know themselves better than anyone. This is what psychoanalysis proves.

>>>Incidentally, the physical body cannot exist without itself being ENSOULED by the etheric double (interpenetrating it, and existing a few centimeters beyond the periphery of the dense, thus displaying an aura). The etheric body cannot truly separate from the dense body, for by very definition this is what we call - death! The Bible contains a passage which tells us plainly of the loosing of the `silver cord,' with reference to the `golden bowl' ... and many of those who have had near-death experiences or out-of-body experiences describe SEEING this silver cord. The etheric body, however, always remains anchored, within the heart, while the astral body separates and goes on its journeys.<<<

I was about to mention out of body experiences when you said the etheric body cannot separate, but then i kept reading I think the silver chord might be a representation of the will of God. It might not belong to us, or the person in cause. It is the will of God that makes this cohabitation of three different energy types even possible. Could this be the anchor ...

>>After the astral body is transcended, some months or years following physical death, what then remains? What is it that has withdrawn and continues on, and thereby brings us one step closer to an `Immortal Soul' and true Self of man?<<

The answer is in the question: the immortal soul.

>>>Some would say that it is the mind, or mental body. This, surely, is something worth preserving between our many thousands of human incarnations. Surely the mind, this principle of Conscious awareness, is our Soul!<<<

Have you ever "changed your mind"? And then back again? Hardly this sounds like "the principle".

>>>Not so, if we wish to understand the true Individual. The mental body, too, is a temporary vehicle of consciousness. How can we define THIS as the true man, if the mental body, just as the astral and physical bodies, is reconstructed for each new human incarnation? Tabula rasa, tabula rasa! How is this our *permanent self*, if the mind, too, even though inhabited for hundreds and hundreds of years, is eventually transcended and cast aside?<<<

There is no tabula rasa. People don't learn anything in fact. They only discover or remember. Think about how similar remembering and understanding "feel"

>>>Esotericists have, for this reason, labeled as `Soul' that vehicle - and the true Individuality occupying it - which exists in the subtler ethers of the mental plane. In so doing, they acknowledge that the Wisdom of the Vedas discussed these matters many thousands of years ago, addressing all that I have said here with much more technicality and in far finer detail. Further, EVERY religion teaches much the same, if using different language and focus, properly adapted for the people and the time in question.<<<

If indeed you are Brahman and not aware of it, then there is no creation of man. But even following creation God is everywhere hence he is also in the soul so you could view the soul as a vehicle. But on the other hand this doesn't advance your quest. God is in an apple too. Is an apple a vehicle?

>>>The Soul, for esotericists, is a triple-entity, thereby reflecting the essential triune nature of Godhead. It is a being, fully Self-Conscious on its own plane, existing far, far transcendent of our normal everyday awareness. This latter, after all, exists AT BEST upon the various portions of the mental plane to which we have become attuned, yet typically with practically NO true self-consciousness UPON that plane. In other words, just because we can even have this discussion, or entertain such ideas, in no way entails that any of us is directly conscious of, or upon, the mental plane!<<<

This Matryoshka doll view looks like a paradox but it isn't. Articulating your thoughts is a function of Ajna and indeed on that plane there is no will, there is no action and no reaction. Hence its pretty hard to become conscious upon the plane itself. But not impossible.
The fact that you don't become conscious of your presence in the mental plane doesn't mean you are not there. There are moments when you become aware of the mental plane and your connection to it: understanding a concept or having a correct hunch for example.
Becoming conscious upon the mental plane might be after all the mission of man on Earth. Perfect reason. Wouldn't that be the "fire" Prometeus stole?

>>>I could share a far more technical approach to this question, giving you a material basis (or uphadi) for the Soul on the physical plane, and showing how a correlation exists upon the astral and lower mental. But doing so would only demonstrate how, in fact, string theory was thoroughly grasped by various individuals 150 years ago and more. Permanent physical atoms, one of which every human Soul has in its possession, consist of 10 associated [st]RINGS, these being together twisted into what appears the approximate shape of a heart. This particle, then, which science knows as a proton, survives our entire series of thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of human incarnations, along with its astral and lower mental counterparts in far, far finer matter.<<<

Could the essence of the soul be revealed trough quantum science?

>>>Humanity became ENSOULED in the esoteric sense about 18 million years ago. This is when the true Humanity of our globe could be said to be born, esoterically and astrologically speaking. The Manasaputras, or Agnishvattas, are esoterically cognate with human Souls. These are the Solar Angels, existing upon the Higher Mental Plane in the same way that our LOWEST expression as the threefold human personality (mind, emotional, body) is the DENSE physical plane ... or lower portions thereof, consisting of solid, liquid and gas.<<<

What if there is no beginning? After all the Yugas repeat at precise periods right?

 

[Thomas]

It would not be my perception that Religion ... and Philosophy ... are the same thing.

I would tend to agree, but that is primarily due to 'philosophy' having become a secular pursuit with the emergence of the universities in the Middle Ages — and then continued along that trajectory from then on.

So in the world today, philosophy' need not encompass a religious dimension, whereas religion necessarily encompasses a philosophical dimension.

Prior to this, philosophy had its theurgic or religious dimension, which I suppose one can now say exists as 'theosophy' as a discipline distinct from 'philosophy'.

If it hasn't been said before, Theosophy has an intent of [unifying] belief systems, providing some order based on the demonstrable evidence that there is some commonality behind all religions.

I think this is a noble gesture, but is it possible?

Whilst the external commonalities among religions are evident and obvious — man being man — the internal aspects of religions are often assumed to be common, whereas in fact they are not common at all. In my experience of discussion with followers of the Theosophical Association, one invariably comes up against assumed definitions of Christian theological and metaphysical terms which are quite wrong, and it becomes evident the term has been stripped of their full theological and metaphysical implication ...

The assumption is that because A means A in this religion,
then something that sounds like A in another means the same thing.

Whereas, in fact, it invariably means something quite different altogether.

This noble ideal also assumes, tacitly if nothing else, that Theosophy's view of all the world's traditions is orthodox and in depth and, as is evident from exchanges here, that is not the case regarding Christianity and nor, as I understand, is it the case regarding Judaism and certain schools of Buddhism.

And I would have to say from experience that the methodology of arriving at a rather enforced syncretism by simply re-defining terms that are problematic, 'shaving off' the distinctive edges of the square pegs so they all fit in the one round hole as it were, renders the terms irrelevant to the tradition they are taken from.

Understanding a religion is not an academic exercise, nor even is that actually possible, in any other but the most abstract sense — religion is essentially something one does, and its reality is experiential, and indeed, self-transcending.

Studies in comparative religion is always useful and worthwhile, if nothing else one can find a ground on which to invite discussion, but one must be mindful of the differences as well as the similarities.

I'll use a quote from the Christian side, to show this sentiment that there IS an inherent God Wisdom, and it is not just the province of Christianity, AT ALL.

Here we seek a classic misunderstanding of the text when taken out of context.

In the Temple at Jerusalem, there was the Court of the Gentiles, where non-Jews might enter and offer prayer to God (this was the court scourged by Christ). Again, when St Paul spoke to the Athenians, he said "... men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts 17:22-23
This locates the Pauline teaching to the Gentiles — he does not assume they are ignorant of God, or that they have no knowledge or understanding of divine things — but he does declare that he brings a new insight, and a new life, a new covenant, to the people of the world.

St. Paul (Bible) says in (I Cor. ii, 6-7): “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world ... But we speak the wisdom of God (Greek ‘Theosophia’) ..."
Here there is just a straightforward error — the word in Greek is 'Theos', not Theosophia — and dare I say it, but to suggest so is misleading with an obvious intent. Shame!

Paul, by the way, is also claiming to be in possession of wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis) that is hidden from the rest of the world, so I think you've confounded your own argument.

Seems to me Theosophical thinking, which could as easily be Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, ... and Christianity CAN go hand-in-hand.

Only when the knowledge of the particular tradition in question is defective.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

I wish to clarify some misconceptions. The hostility I experienced from Christians was rarely stirred up by my argument against its irrationality. I was raised without belief in gods or demons or afterlife. I rarely experienced hostilities simply by admitting to being an atheist or agnostic. I grew up in a very rural area of the Scottish Highlands, Scotland, UK.

Technically, I am a Non-Theistic Agnostic. I do not deny Gods nor do I believe in them. I don't hate God. I have no reason to hate what I consider to be an imaginary god invented with human personality. I do not rule out some kind of creator, inanimate or of a consciousness bearing no resemblence to evolved bipedal apes on this unimportant planet.

God was never on my mind while growing up. I knew many people believed in god. My friends in school were more often Christians and a minority were Atheistic (which means lacking a belief not a denial.) None of us thought the question should make us hate each other.

I spent a year in the US taking a post-doctoral fellowship in Epilepsy and epileptic research. All of the neurologists in our University Neurology Department. I noticed that they ridiculed, mainly Evangelicals (Holy Rollers) and Catholics. I did not know why they felt so strongly about the negativity of US secular democracy.

I rented a house in a suburban neighbourhood. Neighbours welcomed me, and told me my Scot accent was "cute." It went well until a neighbourhood party at Christmas. We talked about Scottish Christmas and British Christmas compared to US Christmas. Then I unfortunataely let it out that I did not believe in God but liked Christmas. There was a few minutes of silence and perplexed looks. One by one, I was approached by my new friends telling me I needed to let Jesus into me and similar comments. I listened politely. It went on for more than an hour. Finally, I said, "I am not interested in finding Jesus. I am quite happy with my own mind's ideas." I added that I supported the US Constitution First Amendment "make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."

I agree with their First Amendment and religious tolerance. Several people, especially women shook their heads at me and many started to leave early. Gradually I noted that when pulling my car out of the drive-way, many of my new friends stopped waving at me or saying "Good Morning." Later when most of the chaps were going to meet at "Fred's house" on Sunday for a US Football playoff game. I was not included on the invitations. My neighbour's children were forbidden to play with my Second grade son or toddler daughter.

When I walked out to cut the grass out front, any neighbour passing, would look the other way to avoid speaking to me.

I was delighted when that year ended in July and we flew back to the UK and from Gatwick to Inverness. I was happy to see smiling faces on the moderate Scottish Christians compared to the intolerance in America. In America, "Atheists" were hated by a majority of American Christians. Explaining that Atheism was not denial of God but admitting I do not know if God exists (Agnostic) did not buy me any tolerance in the US.

There is a double standard in America. It is OK to call Atheists, immoral, nihilists, communists, and un-American. Atheists (aka Agnostics) are the last minority in America who are politically correct to hate. Gays, blacks, muslims, pagans, and Mexican immigrants are higher on the list of hated minorities than the last place atheists-agnostics.

I notice a small number of intelligent and tolerant people on this forum. If they are atheists/agnostic non-theists, I feel sad for their fate. The ACLU has fought a long list of cases of child bullying based on children identified as atheists or are children of atheistic parents. There are beatings, intimidation, social ostracisation, and nasty name calling by Christian bullies in public schools. I learned much of the true nature of America's social bigotry and homicide rates 10 times higher than northern Europe.

May the "possible" god have pity on your souls. I thank that god that I am a Scot living in freedom of and from religion.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

I really am taken aback by the treatment you've received from Christians in America ... honestly ... I never knew it was anything like that, I'm aware of the 'Bible Belt' as a concept, and seen 'Holy Roller' Evangelicals (whom I personally think are doing more damage than good).

Christianity in America, it seems to me, and I could well be wrong, has taken on its own identity, and that identity is intimately tied in with the sociopolitical agenda ...

I listened to a programme on the radio that was discussing the emergence of the religious/political nature of American politics. One of the findings was that generally, those belonging to religious congregations were more generous, more giving, more thoughtful, etc., which we Christians would declare as being part-and-parcel of our vocation.

The actuality is not quite so clear-cut.

The belief in God was, in most congregations, somewhat fuzzy ... and in turns out the open-heartedness, generosity, charity, etc., is not so much motivated by the moral message of Scripture, as the community aspect of the congregation ... in short any community (within reason) would display the same ethical concerns ... so it's not the belief in God that matters so much, as belonging to a community ... this would seem to reflect the unChristian reception you've received on declaring your atheism.

I know I battle with you, Amergin, but that's me. I hope I never argue with people for what they believe, but rather when they comment on what I believe.

My argument with you is that faith is rational. My argument with Wil, for example, is on the content of what we believe, not whether or not it is believable. My argument with Theosophists is that they consistently misrepresent/misunderstand Christianity, assuming that all religions should conform to the way in which they choose to see the world.

But I wouldn't ignore you in the street. I might push poo through your letterbox (Hey! No! I really am joking now) ...

+++

My experience in the UK is almost the reverse ... in our social group, I know of no other Catholic (outside of my immediate family), my in-laws are totally opposed, and never pass up the opportunity to berate the Pope for telling me what to think, or berate me for suspending my critical faculties and following the pope like a whipped dog.

... and the news that I've done a theology degree at parties is usually the source of a great deal of entertainment ... "Really? Does that mean you are a priest?" is asked in all honesty ...

Last week I went to see a comedian who's show was called "Christ on a Bike: the Second Coming". The whole show was ridiculing Scripture.

Before we went in, I announced to the 6 guys I was with, 3 of whom I'd never met before, that I was a theologian and therefore my heckling would be informed and incisive ... sideways looks, uncertain shuffling ... "I'm kidding!" ...

After the show, all six went for my beliefs. The discussion in the pub was long and spirited, with all six saying "I'm not having a go at you, but..." and me saying "If this is getting tedious, just say ..."

We had a great time.

I really am taken aback by your experience in America. It's hard for me to argue for rationality and credibility, when everyone around you is acting in an irrational and credulous manner.

+++

In closing, two things:
I do not expect anyone to believe, for empirical reasons, in God ... but I do reckon that if we are asked to accept the current range of theories from cosmologists, then 'God' is no more nor less outlandish than a blue cheese metacosmos, or m-brane cosmoses ... and bearing in mind the contributions to science down through the years, religious belief is certainly no impediment to science, nor should science be anything but an advantage to religion.

The second is that the more I read (at present) 'The Master and his Emissary' about the functioning of the brain, and the blueprint of mind, the more I question what I believe and why I believe it. In fact the more I go on since engaging in theological studies, the more, in one sense, I find myself skating on the edge of atheism. If I did not do so, I would most likely be a 'blind faith' believer.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Hi Thomas. I feel later guilty after being nasty in my posts. Part if it is from my college at Sanhurst and Dundee, and Med School days at U. of Edinburgh. My fellow students and I enjoyed debating all kinds of things, especially sports, and less often religion. At Sanhurst and Dundee, I debated with Anglican Chrstians and a few Catholics.

I swear, that we never made enemies of each other. We peacefully debated difference between religion and science. As usual some science students were religious but of a stance much less hostile than America. And for our part we outlined our differences with scripture and presented scientific reasons why certain scriptural events did not happen. Many of us are still friends. If anger arose, it occurred only once per year or less. They did not accuse me of being immoral because of my LACK of Belief in their God.

BTW, Atheism is not denial of God's existence. It simply means lack of belief in the issue of God. We do not hate God, and have no belief or denial of Gods. Maybe that is Non-Theistic Agnosticism which I call myself in Scotland where I live. The problem is that in America, "Non-Theistic Agnosticism" rarely is understood. The word Atheist in Sutherland is lack of belief not denial. In America, Atheism is called denial of God, hatred of God, blasphemy, or "Communist inspired hatred." I am not sure why this is so. It had a very negative effect on me. The worst was the general opinion of Americans that Atheists were of necessity "IMMORAL."

Statistics show Non-Theists have a divorce rate of 19% while Evangelicals had 49%. What does that tell me?

I could never live in America or most Muslim Countries because of their intense hatred of my studied non-Theistic Agnosticism.

Peace Mate,

Shall we try to soften our rougher rhetoric?

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

I have been told by my early school teachers about the soul. As I understood it, every human being has a soul. The soul was described to me as not a material entity, but it inhabits the human body in some way. When the person dies, the soul leaves the body and resides somewhere until the Last Judgement. I was told that non-human animals did not possess an immortal soul. The animal soul supposedly died when the animal died. This I think is the Christian belief. The soul is not matter nor energy but something else entirely.

I think some non-Christian religions believe that all animals including human animals possess a soul. Some think the soul migrates at death to inhabit a new body, not necessarily of the human species, reincarnation.

Correct me if I am wrong so far.

If only humans have an immortal soul and non-human animals do not have an immortal soul, where along the long course of biological evolution from unicellular protista to Pikaia to fish to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to mammal primates, to Apes/Monkeys, to Apes, to Hominids, to the first humans (H. habilis), to H. erectus, to H. rhodesiensis, to Homo sapiens sapiens.

At what point in that direct evolutionary line, did immortal souls inhabit animals? Do all animals have the same kind of soul, or is it only humans? If only hominids, was it Ardipithecus or Australopithecus? If only members of the human genus, then which human first had an immortal soul? Was it H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. rhodesiensis, or H. sapiens sapiens?

Since that evolutionary transition was slow and gradual, it is difficult to draw a line where a Homo sapiens baby was born to H. rhodesiensis. If sapiens has an immortal soul and rhodesiensis does not, how did sapiens acquire the immortal soul?

It seems reasonable that if we have an immortal soul it was present also in H. erectus, Australopithecus, Pierolanthropus, Carpolestes, Permian mammal-reptiles, amphibians, fish, amphioxus, Pikaia or some Cambrian worm.

Second question is about the nature of the soul. If the soul is not matter or subatomic particles, or tiny vibrating energy strings, what is the composition of the soul?

I realise that different religious systems may have different versions of what is the soul.

My personal concept of soul is that it is the summation of active electrochemical circuits in networks that produce consciousness, cognition, memory, perception, reason, emotion, basic and complex motor functions, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and programmed sexual functions. When the person dies, where does this programme go? I believe that the soul vanishes in much the same way music stops when I unplug the radio.

You can not kill a "soul" human or animal. But there is a difference...

Humans know better

Animals are innocent

I know, to think about that hurts, and is frightening...

 

[Christian von Lähr]

My argument with you is that faith is rational. My argument with Wil, for example, is on the content of what we believe, not whether or not it is believable. My argument with Theosophists is that they consistently misrepresent/misunderstand Christianity, assuming that all religions should conform to the way in which they choose to see the world.

Well, I am Christian and a Theosophist. I read a discrete, precise, practiced, recital from a Christian guidebook that has probably taken thousands and thousands of modern day Vatican man-hours to conjure up in rebuttal to question and query from the looking-for-the-common-meaning Theosophist, and NOT a representation of [actual] Christians. When you can come from a place of such High arrogance that you think you have “the Right” AND the final word on the interpretation on scriptures, etymology, mythology, philosophy – such that you can further dare think you have so much TRUTH in [you] that you can proclaim shame on other participants who disagree with you, as you have done with me, then you are neither debating, nor sharing … you are pontificating. You are therefore arguing bigotry, and render [conversation] pure theatrics on your part for an audience; there is NO value allowed or realized from the Doubting-Thomas’ of us to make participation meaningful. I am not here to feather the Vatican’s bed, nor to fill your head with more soap bubbles.

People contribute to show the process(es) and merit(s) of their thinking, philosophies, and experiences HERE because it is a place of sharing-exchange, not Thomas-Soap-Box building. You DO represent the problem your imagined Theosophical antagonists would suggest of Christianity through the ages as it has progressed into a “this is the ONLY word, swallow it or die!” dogma. There WAS a time when Christianity [could] enforce this edict, and certainly did as has already been attested to by way of the millions who lay dead in the wake of the spread of Christianity; do you REALLY think your continuation of this attitude is of value in the world today? People will take offense now, and argue, curse and show their angst, anger and frustration … but if weapons and death sentences were [still] allowed, wouldn’t [your] course indicate NOTHING has changed or improved in Christianity since those dark ages … I dare ask without kissing the ruby ring? What God are you serving? What Good do you support? What is so wrong with the world trying to trying to understand each other, not just Thomas?

 

[Christian von Lähr]

You can not kill a "soul" human or animal. But there is a difference...

Humans know better

Animals are innocent

I know, to think about that hurts, and is frightening...

This MIGHT depend on how you are defining "you." This can have a lot of meanings, to a lot of different belief systems. Your point is easily taken only if you mean in the here-and-now, that neither you nor I as an existing human can cause such death in the immediate. Soul is a subjective term, and it will not mean the same things in all systems, but to me YES soul is a destructable thing, and in fact all souls are destroyed in the sense [at minimum] that is value serves a [manifested Universe]. [Where] and what you attribute Soul to be is probably the factors of difference in challenge to your statement.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

Hi Thomas. I feel later guilty after being nasty in my posts.[/quotee]
I know that feeling.

BTW, Atheism is not denial of God's existence. It simply means lack of belief in the issue of God.

Oooh, not so sure. According to the dictionary, it goes from 'weak atheism' (lack of belief) to 'strong atheism', rejection of any such notion. I would have thought the weak position equals agnosticism ... anyway, I suppose it depends on your atheist.

Peace Mate,

Peace.

Shall we try to soften our rougher rhetoric?

That would be useful. I have the distinct impression that I'm going to have a lot of neuroscience questions heading your way, I'm making inroads into "The Master and his Emissary" now ...

Peace,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Well, I am Christian and a Theosophist. I read a discrete, precise, practiced, recital from a Christian guidebook that has probably taken thousands and thousands of modern day Vatican man-hours to conjure up in rebuttal to question and query from the looking-for-the-common-meaning Theosophist, and NOT a representation of [actual] Christians.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. What 'Christian guidebook'?.

When you can come from a place of such High arrogance that you think you have “the Right” AND the final word on the interpretation on scriptures, etymology, mythology, philosophy –

The way it works here, chum, is that people have every right to claim what they will, and others have every right to challenge those claims. If that's arrogance to you, then you really don't understand the peer-review method, or the road to truth.

By 'arrogance' you mean you alone have total access to the truth of all traditions, and who am I to question that claim?

Let's be clear — Christians claim only the right to interpret their own Scripture ... whereas Theosophists claim the right and the true interpretation of every Scripture ... this seems hubris in extremis to me.

... such that you can further dare think you have so much TRUTH in [you] that you can proclaim shame on other participants who disagree with you...

Christian, in my experience, when a Theosophist is faced with a question he or she cannot answer, or when a plain error is pointed out to them, they attack the character of the questioner. If you don't like being proved wrong, you should check your facts before you make your claims.

I do not claim to have the truth, but I do claim tio see the errors in your propositions.

Now you can berate me all you like for doing so, it's water off a duck's back ... the issue is all your noise and bluster is an avoidance of the point: if you can support your thesis, answer the questions.

... as you have done with me, then you are neither debating, nor sharing … you are pontificating.

Read your own post, chum, and tell me who's soapboxing.

To get back to the point:
1 You stated that in your opinion religion and philosophy are not the same thing.
I replied that they are no longer the same pursuit, but they once were.
You fail to address the implication of that statement.


2 You stated that 'Theosophy has an intent of [unifying] belief systems, providing some order based on the demonstrable evidence that there is some commonality behind all religions.'
I replied that I think this is a noble gesture, but is it possible? And then went on to demonstrate why I think it's an erroneous assumption.

3: You said: I'll use a quote from the Christian side, to show this sentiment that there IS an inherent God Wisdom, and it is not just the province of Christianity, AT ALL.
I replied that context is all-important, and that in context, the Scripture you cite actually asserts almost the opposite of what you assume it to mean. You have not responded to my point.

4: You offered an erroneous translation of Scripture: ... in (I Cor. ii, 6-7): “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world ... But we speak the wisdom of God (Greek ‘Theosophia’)"
The term is theos, not Theosophia ... so this is just, plainly, factually wrong.

5: You said: "Seems to me Theosophical thinking, which could as easily be Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, ... and Christianity CAN go hand-in-hand."
I replied, that it might seem so, but that's only because you don't really understand the doctrine.

SO you can either lambast me for daring to raise such points as formal and factual error in your post ... or you can try and address the errors highlighted.

Up to you.

God bless.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Yes, it's a long road to becoming a Mahatma ...

... and I'm pretty sure, somewhere halfway around the world, my smile just met with a silent answer.

[As George Harrison said, "If you don't know where you're going/Any road will take you there" ... and, right here in this discussion, we can see that plain enough.]

wil, your points are well made, well taken.

However, I do not represent Theosophy, or Theosophists, by choice. I do so at least in part by necessity ... and I cringe. Still, my life as an active member of the TS is behind me, as is my direct action as a Christian.

But I am able, from a certain P.O.V., to recall when THIS Soul was first called to a modern Theosophical revival, some ~3500 years ago, followed by additional approaches ~2500ya, ~2100ya, ~2000ya, ~900ya and ~65ya ... and almost exactly 22 years ago.

The very `thing' which our friend Thomas here speaks of as getting in the way of the expression of his Christian LOVE (certainly something the Soul knows a good bit more about than we do) ... short-circuits his efforts here at Interfaith every way he turns. It is much like watching a well played game of chess, and he doesn't seem to realize that every person here would just as soon see him win. So long as it is the personal ego, or little self which he is championing, however, the more Expert, Master Chess Player [can you guess Who this is, Thomas?] ... will make mincemeat of him every time.

And Christ's Love, last I checked, was not one which SEEKS to embarrass, or to unnecessarily humiliate, or to knock a man - either proverbially or literally - on his ass. Nevertheless, it does all of this ... when necessary ... even if some of it is spread across lifetimes.

Keep paying attention old Friend. Whether it takes to your dying day, or a short while afterward, or - as with most - another whirl or two around the Wheel, I think you'll come to it. One day, Mr. Witchfynder General will evolve into an Ambassador and Diplomat 1st Class.

In the meantime, you've got a LONG way to go. And if you don't know where you're goin' ...

What's that? I, too, have a long way to go before I make `Mahatma 1st Class?'

Really? Yeah I kind of thought as much.

So, to address what you've said more directly, wil ... there may be people who feel the same about ME with regard to esoteric studies as I do about Thomas, but nevertheless:

THANK GOD you represent the exception to the rule when it comes to most Christians, rather than the norm, Sir Thomas. Apparently, and quite clearly, I am not the only one who feels this way. A lot of others around here have just grown accustomed to DEALING with it a bit better ... which I daresay stretches their own moment-by-moment practice of Christianity - at least occasionally!

If only, if only, I could rain sunshine out my ass ... I'd paint you a beautiful Spring day, every day for the rest of your life. So I hear, you, and pretty much most folks, have a guy for that already, however. And you, as you have made clear, have decided that this makes folks like me superfluous. Nothing more than an annoying little gnat that you must occasionally deal with, or swat at.

As I've said before: Take your best shot.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Christian —

You can see my point now, I'm sure.

When in doubt, attack the character of your opponent.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

It ALWAYS takes two to tango eh?

And I find it interesting Ghandi was displeased being referred to as Mahatma.

I put up a short post on enlightenment where to me a few differing sources were indicating oneness, and that we are all part and parcel of this experience....hence our interaction here I suppose.

Interesting if we were to calculate this thread as destiny and a requirement of our souls growth eh?

How would we look at it differently, how would we respond differently?

What if we were being graded? Not by some book of life, but by our souls growth, and whether we had to return for another class/lesson if we don't pass this one?

How would we act to one another if we truly knew we are brothers in this struggle and each of our growth his determined by how we help one another?



What does Matthew 25:40 mean to you?

 

[Quahom1]

This MIGHT depend on how you are defining "you." This can have a lot of meanings, to a lot of different belief systems. Your point is easily taken only if you mean in the here-and-now, that neither you nor I as an existing human can cause such death in the immediate. Soul is a subjective term, and it will not mean the same things in all systems, but to me YES soul is a destructable thing, and in fact all souls are destroyed in the sense [at minimum] that is value serves a [manifested Universe]. [Where] and what you attribute Soul to be is probably the factors of difference in challenge to your statement.

Are you right lobed or left lobed? That could be how I define you...but I choose not to.

So, it is best not to get too deep into what is "us" at this point...I should think.

 

[taijasi]

One thing I am thoroughly convinced about regarding our Soul:

The plan of evolution allows for a tremendous margin of what we, typically from a rather limited standpoint, would call error. This is true for each and every one of us for the symbolic 700 of 777 rebirths.

During the 70, it is hoped ~ no, more than hoped, required ~ that this balance of error gradually become shifted onto that of ... what we may simply think of as GAIN. This is Gain for God, this is Gain for Humanity, and this is Gain for both everyone, and everything [speaking in terms of collectivities of Consciousness, learning to Cooperate] in between. Yet there is still balancing, a fulcrum to be discovered, explored and maintained.

The final 7 lifetimes are certainly those wherein, from a Spiritual p.o.v. we reap the final fruits, the Harvest which we ourselves most certainly have sown. Except that ere we step foot upon The Path marked by these 7 lives, we have already learned to forget [try this on again shall we? egoless indeed, it is a sticky thing] ... enough of our differences to make the real WORK possible.

I'm pretty sure we weren't all called here, at this time, for a simple afternoon of navel-gazing, an astronomy lesson, or tea & biscuits with light conversation. Any of these are suitable enough as pretext, but that man over behind the curtain keeps telling me to get on with the show.

He's not really there, some say, and I tell them to hush ... they don't know what they're rattling on about. Meanwhile, it's fairly clear to everyone else, at almost any given time, that even if I don't either, the man is there; it's just that he may not be quite what he appears.

But then, neither am I. And neither are you. And there I go again, with that self vs. other business again. How many times shall we bring ourselves back to this/that/the other point in our meditation ... and prayer?

As many as it takes. And that will be the answer to another question which so many people will logically and rightly ask. I earnestly hope they ~ that is you ~ may find the answer. It really doesn't matter what anyone else says, now does it?

In the last analysis, only we, ourselves, can change ... though I'm pretty sure every word/idea/approach/p.o.v./aspect of this sentence, also changes.

Funny thing ...

On a personal note, apologies to you, Thomas. If Thackeray is correct, and that sowing [a] character reaps Destiny, I most certainly wish you well in the sowing of precisely that character ... which shall lead you to the Destiny which God intends. That, I earnestly wish ~ for my greatest enemy, and for my greatest friend. There is ... no difference.

But hey, it sure feels like it sometimes when we're down somewhere in the unawakened, undisciplined, non-transformed aspects of these psyche things we seem to have been given, and become. Yes, in pondering Buddha-nature, it occurs to me that we, too, shall one day attain to equanimity, and to such a greater demonstration of Goodwill that even the Will-to-Good may demonstrate through each of us just as it came to do for the man from Nazareth ... and the sage of the Shakyas. Will-to-Good, and Soul, hmmmm.

Yes indeed, apologies to you, for a character attack, Thomas, if that's what it was. I was rather frustrated, definitely perturbed, and as has been pointed out, I should know better.

So I stand by the TS in its motto: `There is no religion higher than Truth.'
Yet I will endeavor to live a little bit closer to that great Ideal and Principle for which its Founders were willing to sacrifice so much of Themselves.

We call it Soul.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Taijasi —

Personally I think the notion of reincarnation becomes more and more untenable the more we understand about who and what we are — but that's the way I construe things at present.

But the primary issue for me is that the soul does not deliver itself up to easy categorisation — I don't think the soul is a 'thing' so much as a dynamic.

At ground, according to Scripture, 'soul' and 'life' are synonymous (nephesh). Furthermore everything in the cosmos is created, but the soul is not created in the same way, it is breathed (ruach, neshamah)into a created thing.

For me the soul is not a fixed nature either, the soul does not evolve as natures do — in time and linearly. Rather the soul 'grows' or shrinks by participation (or lack thereof), and in a very special way — the soul participates in the being of that which it participates in.

The soul is not by nature eternal, nor by nature immortal, nor by nature divine (although it can become so, by participation) the soul comes into being and has a beginning in time, and the possibility of extinction (by participation in the unreal, which exhausts it).

But above all I do not view the soul as a 'thing' as such, it's more a dynamic, a nexus ... certainly one can say 'my soul', and the soul is intimately and inextricably entwined with the idea of the person. (This is why we do not believe in reincarnation — for us a reincarnated soul — which is the ground of one's individual being — would necessarily manifest the same person as before, not a different one.)

The soul is one, what seeks to possess or rather entrap the soul is legion.

... what we may simply think of as GAIN. This is Gain for God, this is Gain for Humanity, and this is Gain for both everyone, and everything [speaking in terms of collectivities of Consciousness, learning to Cooperate] in between.

Interesting ... as you might be aware, I'm studying neuroscience at the moment, and this is a very left-hemisphere was of viewing things — as a matter of utility — things are either of use, or they're not.

Yet there is still balancing, a fulcrum to be discovered, explored and maintained.

Now, I would suggest, you're talking about the right hemisphere way of viewing things, which is holistic and empathic — it sees all as one, before all subsequent and determinate categorisation (a left hemisphere function).

It really doesn't matter what anyone else says, now does it?

Actually, I think it does — 'no man is an island' — and what others say and do shape the world as much as we do. But I take your point.

Again — language is left hemisphere, but meaning is right hemisphere ... were you and I 'eye to eye' we would read and understand each other much better, I think, the written word is really a very, very poor means of transmitting ideas, hence the tendency to misunderstanding.

On a personal note, apologies to you, Thomas.

No problem.

So I stand by the TS in its motto: `There is no religion higher than Truth.'

This has always puzzled me ... not the statement itself, I think that is admirable, even though I do not hold to it (I think there's more to religion than 'truth') ...

... what puzzles me, is others have said, and not you, as I recall, that there is no doctrine in TS, no dogma ... so then what of 'truth'? If truth is purely relative, then surely there must be a higher ... and yet if there is truth, then there is a dogma and a doctrine that will naturally unfold from that?

To have no doctrine, no dogma (which simply means 'house rules') is to say everyone can believe what they like, in which case truth becomes a casualty of the ego ...

... now in our clashes in the past, what surely stands out to anyone reading our exchanges, is the clash of the irresistible force against the immovable object!

Tai (if I may) ... Andrew ... I offer this as an olive:

"These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."
A.E. Housman. Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

Especially that last verse ... I have a feeling that the last two survivors of this army, holding the heavens and the earth in place, would turn and face each other and find ... Taijasi and Thomas, and each would cry out, "What the heck are you doing here?"

I know if I wanted someone I could rely on to cover my back, someone I could trust to slug it out to the bitter end, then I'd come looking for you.

God bless, and keep them bible-belters at bay!

Thomas

 

[wil]

I know if I wanted someone I could rely on to cover my back, someone I could trust to slug it out to the bitter end, then I'd come looking for you.

God bless, and keep them bible-belters at bay!

Thomas

I'll bring the Cranberry Juice and scones...

and take bets from the peanut gallery...

But it is starting to appear that swords and even shields are being set aside....

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

I have been told by my early school teachers about the soul. As I understood it, every human being has a soul.

In fact, every living thing has a soul. The Hebrew word is for soul, nepesh, is also the hebrew word for life: "For the life (nepesh) of all flesh is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14 and "breath of life, and man became a living (chay) soul (nepesh)" Genesis 2:7 and again, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living (chay) creature (nepesh)" Genesis 1:24.

In the Hebrew Scriptures nepesh can mean 'soul', 'life', 'person', 'mind', 'heart', 'creature', 'body', 'will', 'desire', 'man' ... in short, it's a very slippery notion.

The soul was described to me as not a material entity, but it inhabits the human body in some way.

I would say the soul is an entity, and the body is its materiality.

When the person dies, the soul leaves the body and resides somewhere until the Last Judgement.

Yes, allowing that we understand 'reside' not in a spatiotemporal sense. It seems common sense to say there is not a secret corner of the universe where souls are stored, and by the same token there's not a celestial 'waiting room'. The soul is not hampered by dimension, which is a qualification of materiality.

I was told that non-human animals did not possess an immortal soul.

Ah ... the vexatious question of immortality.

In Christianity we are told the soul is immortal. I would dispute that statement as given. The soul is not eternal, in that it is a created nature, and anything that comes into being from nothing (not from some incomprehensible other mode of being, nor the product or effect of an act of being or beings), can pass out of being the way it came into being: "because he hath delivered his soul unto death" Isaiah 53:12, "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" Mark 8:36.

The soul can become immortal by participation in that which is immortal.

The animal soul supposedly died when the animal died.

Again, debatable. Certainly, where there is no life, there is no soul... beyond that, I would not say.

The soul is not matter nor energy but something else entirely.

Yes. Bearing in mind that matter is energy.

If only humans have an immortal soul and non-human animals do not have an immortal soul, where along the long course of biological evolution from unicellular protista to Pikaia to fish to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to mammal primates, to Apes/Monkeys, to Apes, to Hominids, to the first humans (H. habilis), to H. erectus, to H. rhodesiensis, to Homo sapiens sapiens. At what point in that direct evolutionary line, did immortal souls inhabit animals?

Again I would think in other terms than 'inhabit'. I would tend to think of the human soul emerging as humanity emerges. By humanity I do not mean walking upright, but the 'qualities' that mark off humanity. Again, the soul is not immortal, but engages with that which is, so that requires an order of consciousness that can be conscious of self, and conscious of the self of another, and feel empathy with that other (although animals probably display empathy to a limited degree).

So rather than mark off evolutionary types, I would look for other signals. The emergence of art, for example, and funerary rites; the emergence of the human image in art, and especially the face.

Do all animals have the same kind of soul, or is it only humans?

I would say every living thing has soul. There are then 'gradations' of the soul — vegitative, animal and human, from Aristotle, for example, which traditionally corresponds to life, consciousness and rationality. I would suggest this third definition, 'rationality' does not quite cover it. There's empathy, which is the ability to associate with the other, and it is this empathy, at the highest level, which participates in the essence of the other, a union in a very real sense.

Second question is about the nature of the soul. If the soul is not matter or subatomic particles, or tiny vibrating energy strings, what is the composition of the soul?

Love?

My personal concept of soul is that it is the summation of active electrochemical circuits in networks that produce consciousness, cognition, memory, perception, reason, emotion, basic and complex motor functions, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and programmed sexual functions. When the person dies, where does this programme go? I believe that the soul vanishes in much the same way music stops when I unplug the radio.

I think that's because you see the soul as product of the process? I see the soul as prior, a way of being that evolution heads towards, a way of being that nature tries to encompass within bodies, or rather a way of being that nature seeks to embody.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Hi Amergin —


In fact, every living thing has a soul. The Hebrew word is for soul, nepesh, is also the hebrew word for life: "For the life (nepesh) of all flesh is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14 and "breath of life, and man became a living (chay) soul (nepesh)" Genesis 2:7 and again, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living (chay) creature (nepesh)" Genesis 1:24.

In the Hebrew Scriptures nepesh can mean 'soul', 'life', 'person', 'mind', 'heart', 'creature', 'body', 'will', 'desire', 'man' ... in short, it's a very slippery notion.

I can understand the concept of soul being life. Christians consider death to be the soul leaving the body. I consider the soul also being life and death is loss of the soul. We look at it from opposite directions. I do think the soul is real and it is life, but biological or neurobiological processes of the animal/human body produce it. Instead of the soul preceding the life process, I think it is the life (consciousness, cognition, emotion/love, memory, personality, desires for learning, desire for pleasure, guide the biological body that generates the soul in protecting that body. When I die, I consider it to mean my neurological functions have ceased as neurons die, axons fail, and synapses dissolve. In a sense, my death will occur when my neurobiological soul leaves the body (ceases to generate neuronal action potentials of saltatory electrical conduction.

I would say the soul is an entity, and the body is its materiality.

Like you, I consider the soul to be an entity (not a simply materialism). I consider the body to be material and the soul to be the collective product of complex electrochemical circuits firing in a million million synapses. Individually a neuron and axon does nothing amazing. All together with regulatory on-off switches that we still have only partial knowledge; it produces what you and I might understand as the soul.

Yes, allowing that we understand 'reside' not in a spatiotemporal sense. It seems common sense to say there is not a secret corner of the universe where souls are stored, and by the same token there's not a celestial 'waiting room'. The soul is not hampered by dimension, which is a qualification of materiality.

That reminds me of an idea of immortality. We exist in three spatial dimensions and and the time dimension. I consider that we currently exist in the three spatial dimensions. However, in the time dimension of 1949 AD to 20** AD, I will always exist. My death and loss of my neurobiological soul will mark the limit of my existence to that time period or dimension. I did not exist in 1945 and will not exist after 20**.

In Christianity we are told the soul is immortal. I would dispute that statement as given. The soul is not eternal, in that it is a created nature, and anything that comes into being from nothing (not from some incomprehensible other mode of being, nor the product or effect of an act of being or beings), can pass out of being the way it came into being: "because he hath delivered his soul unto death" Isaiah 53:12, "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" Mark 8:36.

We are close here. I just regard the Soul as an immaterial entity produced by complex brain circuits. If I ring you up on the phone, and you hear my voice. It is not actually my voice. It is electromagnetic waves. My voice triggers electromagnetic generators. They produce the first wave of electromagnetic waves carrying variations of signal. These are picked up by satellite and nearly identical electromagnetic waves are sent to your local phone signal or server. That makes a third wave of electrical blips that by themselves do not sound like my voice. Your phone receives the signals with a device that activates a series of variable sounds that form words. You are not hearing me but a series of electrically generated sound that resemble my voice and words. Is not verbosity annoying?

The soul can become immortal by participation in that which is immortal.

In addition, that which is immortal is the past. It is the time period from our births to our deaths in which we will always exist. I will skip the multiple universes debate.

Again, debatable. Certainly, where there is no life, there is no soul... beyond that, I would not say.


Yes. Bearing in mind that matter is energy.

Agreed.

Again I would think in other terms than 'inhabit'. I would tend to think of the human soul emerging as humanity emerges. By humanity I do not mean walking upright, but the 'qualities' that mark off humanity. Again, the soul is not immortal, but engages with that which is, so that requires an order of consciousness that can be conscious of self, and conscious of the self of another, and feel empathy with that other (although animals probably display empathy to a limited degree).

That would require us to draw a line separating the first human baby born to a pre-human mother and father. I think life is a continuum that began with bacteria that formed by yet unknown mechanisms about 4 billion years ago. The mental differences between Sahelanthropus (Chimp-human ancestor) and Orronin tugensis would pass unnoticed in one reproductive pair and their children. The same likely is true of Australopithecus to Homo, Homo habilis to Homo erectus, Homo erectus to H. rhodesiensis, or H. rhodesiensis to H. sapiens idaltu, or Homo sapiens idaltu to Homo sapiens sapiens. I doubt that a line can be drawn separating two consecutive hominids.

If one cannot draw such a line from the earliest proto-vertebrate Pikaia to Homo sapiens sapiens, can we even draw a line between Stromatolytes and Homo sapiens sapiens?

Adam and Eve were not likely raised by a pair of Ape parents.

So rather than mark off evolutionary types, I would look for other signals. The emergence of art, for example, and funerary rites; the emergence of the human image in art, and especially the face.

Neanderthals had funerary rites. The oldest carved figurines in Europe 40,000 years ago cannot be presumed to be modern human made. It could have been Neanderthals. Vocal speech is attributed to the FOXP2 gene. Modern humans have it. Neanderthals had it. If a child is born with an altered FOXP2, they lack expressive speech. Therefore, it is likely Neanderthals spoke. 300,000 years ago, Homo heidelbergensis (called Homo rhodesiensis in Africa) common ancestor to Neanderthals and Sapiens likely had the FOXP2 gene because both of their descendants have it.

We must consider that Dolphins do communicate in a click whistle language. They will respond specifically to a recorded series of clicks and whistles. They also will obey commands drawn in black silhouettes on white background showing Jumping, tail walking, swim making waves, breaching. The African Grey Parrot Alex spoke in human language. It was not just copying. Alex would ask for certain foods, argue with his trainer, pick out each of five different colours and correctly name the colour. Scientists have avoided non-Human intelligence for a long time perhaps due to Christian belief taboos. Now they are finding out dogs, dolphins, parrots, and cephalopods are quite intelligent. I personally went to Central Washington University's Primate Centre where I communicated for 20 minutes with a Chimp using sign language. He asked me to play the run game. The keeper told me what it was. I ran along the glass window of the enclosure to the other end, turned and ran back several times. The Chimp raced with me. When the Chimp reached the starting point ahead of me by two paces, he jumped and clapped his hands together celebrating his win.

Because I am not restricted in my thinking by religious belief, my mind is open to view animal communication of which I was sceptical previously.

I would say every living thing has soul. There are then 'gradations' of the soul — vegitative, animal and human, from Aristotle, for example, which traditionally corresponds to life, consciousness and rationality. I would suggest this third definition, 'rationality' does not quite cover it. There's empathy, which is the ability to associate with the other, and it is this empathy, at the highest level, which participates in the essence of the other, a union in a very real sense.

I would say that there are no qualitative gradations of the "soul" (neurobiological mind). There are gradations of specific mental functions. Humans are the best at communication and art (a form of communication), rational thinking, and abstract concepts. However, sheep dogs are much better than the fastest human at herding sheep. I know. I did so in Scotland as a lad.

The Cheetah's motor soul, as the Pronghorn produce the fastest ground speed. Most advanced vertebrates and cephalopods (octopus, squid, and cuttlefish) all show admirable problem solving thought. We are better but do not have a patent on problem solving. A cephalopod was tested using a screw top jar containing a tasty shrimp was manipulated by the smart mollusc's tentacles. First attempts ended with him bashing the jar on a rock to get the shrimp. Then he fondled the next jar, gripping the lid and pushing, pulling, and rotating it, finally unscrewed the jar. From then on, he remembered how to open jars.

Another experiment used a plastic box tall and with four compartments. Under the last compartment was a gold fish. They used a predator fish who tried to break the box by taking a rock and dropping it on the box. When on landed on top, the first compartment dropped open. The fish then tried again with a second rock, and a third time the rock released the gold fish that was then eaten. After a couple of repeats, the predatory fish gathered three rocks and dropped them on the top collapsing all compartments and releasing the feeder fish. There are many other impressive examples of different kind of animal intelligence.

Humans owe our high IQ to the accidental loss of forest loss in a dry period during an Ice Age. Chimps retreated with the retreating forest, Australopithecines were able adapt with upright gait to better watch for dangers. It freed the arms to carry food and babies. Those who used their hands found they could break stones and wood branches for use as weapons or tools. Those with brains that are more complex made better tools, and led to group social cooperation. The brain had to keep pace with survival demands. The larger brain solved problems, and likely developed communication much earlier than we think. Verbal communication aided human hunter bands who lacked the physical prowess of hyenas and lion prides.

Love?

Love is an emotion that is not limited to humankind. It bonds humans together in superior survival groups. It makes adults take risks to save children and spouses. Elephants do the same thing. It is seen in all primates back to 34-23 MYA – Victoriapithecus macinnesi, ancestor to Monkeys, Apes, and Humans.

I have seen a male goose grieve when his mate was taken away. He repeatedly walked to where the truck was parked that took her away. He showed love. Dogs and Cats risk lives to enter a building fire to save human owners. That is love. Our Jack Russell terrier grieved and refused to eat for a month after my grandfather died. "Jock" died shortly after that. It was true grief. He moaned and even went to Grandfather's grave in our family plot daily.

I think that's because you see the soul as product of the process? I see the soul as prior, a way of being that evolution heads towards, a way of being that nature tries to encompass within bodies, or rather, a way of being that nature seeks to embody.

Evolution is not always forward in intelligence. It selects out mutational changes for the few that survive better as conditions change. Humans did not evolve in a random direction. Sahelanthropus gave rise to Chimps that lived in forests. Ice Ages caused droughts and loss of forest to savannah leading to the necessity of bipedal gait for survival.

Harsher competition on the grassy plains selected out those bipedal apes who were smarter, who could communicate in group survival efforts. A cycle of wet and hot dry periods of the Ice Age each time selected out the smartest, most ingenious, most group cooperative, most efficient memory, communication, and inquiry (observing other animal behaviour for hunting and for protection from predators.) It was not random. It was natural responses of a species of hominids lacking fangs, claws, armour, speed, or powerful muscles. Their weapon was smarts. Once established as smart hominids, evolution selected out the smartest of the smart.

Elephants survived by great size and strength with some group encouraging intelligence. Lions triumphed with strength, fangs, and claws. Turtles and Asian Rhinos triumph with body armour. Monkeys survived by adaptation to living in trees, with four grasping limbs, binocular vision and excellent distance perception for jumping tree to tree. Evolution just produces what works, not what is necessarily better. However, natural selection improves what works to something that works better.

God bless,

Thomas

Feicfidh mé arís ar ball tú,

Amergin