An Inquiry into the nature of the Soul

Spirituality
#1

What is the nature of the Soul? Is there a physical quality of the soul that can be described? Is the soul pure energy? Is it a photon? In this article I?ll try to brainstorm a bit on these issues, without any pretense of giving an exhaustive theory.

According to Vedanta existence has two aspects, Shiva and Shakti also described as the higher aspect of the Godsoul that dwells in us (Purusha) and the lower aspect of energetic and material illusionary world (Maya). This is a kind of dualist view with a Godsoul as knower of the field on the one hand and its substrate of expression, the field that is known by the Godsoul, on the other hand. Another view is the monist view: The Soul is an energy based entity and matter is just a form of energy. According to the Siva Samhita?s monist view only entity exists. Everything is Jnana (i.e. knowledge or intelligence). Shiva and shakti are embedded therein. I must confess that I have always felt more drawn to the monist view. Recently I have started to analyse this subject in a bit more detail, which I?d like to share here.

Energy per se could either be considered as being soul matter and then each photon would basically be a soul entity. Note that in Christianity Jesus says ?I?m the light?). This view is difficult to support if you realise that photons can be captured by matter (like in the retina or in photosynthesis) and are simply used to bring molecules to higher molecular orbital states: there they become part of the molecular matter and do not dwell as independent entities anymore. This would lead to the conclusion that a photon or a quantum of energy per se is not necessarily a ?Soul?.

Another view is the animistic view: everything which exists is therein endowed with a Soul, also matter. The question there would be what is then the smallest quantum of Soulness? A photon? It recalls some memories in me from Lucretius? (an epicurist philosopher; in the book ?de rerum natura?) ?animatque animai?: We would be endowed with a higher soul the anima, but our body would consist of smaller animai, lower soul entities under the control of the higher anima.

I.K. Taimni describes in his book ?Self Culture? that plants and insects do not have individual Souls but grouped together form a ?group soul?; this term resonates with the scientific term Global Brain (Howard Bloom), which is well known to exist for beehives and anthills. Perhaps each cell in the body is one of those lower animai, that build together the higher Anima as a Global brain?

Another belief amounts to the division of living matter vs. dead matter. Certain adepts of this hypothesis believe, that in order for dead matter to become living, the presence of a ?Godly Spark? is an absolute requirement. Recently by inserting a complete artificially synthesized ?bacterial Artificial Chromosome? (BAC) into an empty (i.e. devoid of nucleic acid) so-called ?Ghost cell?, a cell has been obtained which in every aspect qualifies as ?living?. So where is the Godly spark at cellular level? Or is it within the structure of the artificial DNA (certain people believe that the DNA is the seat of the soul). It?s hard to follow that argument as a BAC is sythesised from simple molecular building blocks. So if there is a animai type soul in a cell, it is at lower aggregation level: the energy captured at molecular level. Then also the so-called dead matter should be considered as having an animai-type soul.

In Vedanta, Shiva can only be, whereas Shakti can only become. Existence of souls is the path of ?becoming to be?; the union of Shiva and Shakti. Our soul captured in matter learns in the material world how to return to the pure state of Godhead. According to I.K.Taimni the Soul is allegedly rooted in the Absolute (Paramatma) where all knowledge and understanding is present in its purest form. The physical world and for that matter also the body and the brain is the densest aggregation level of existence; there are higher shells of existential levels around us (the koshas), the highest one of which (Adi or the Monad) is rooted in the Godhead. For a more explicit explanation of these things read I.K.Taimni?s Man, God and the Universe. So the blur of visual and other sensory sensations is fed to Isvara (God), who is the Bhoktr (the enjoyer) thereof. According to Taimni, the local Isvara of this solar system, is the star we call the Sun. That?s where our soul is supposed to be rooted, and that could be the place where the being and knowing merge. The weakness of this reply is that the ?ghost in the machine? problem is deferred to yet another aggregation level i.e. the Sun. The advantage is that there the ?concept space? is directly embedded in an concentrated energy matrix without the cumbersome structures of the physical world. The souls follow their path in the form of living, matter based entities through reincarnation until there are capable of breaking their links to the material existence. Then they become themselves a Star like the Sun, a local Isvara, and can create their own worlds on planets and have living beings thereon, whose ultimate essence of Soulness is rooted in that Sun; These living beings are somehow the children of this Isvara and their souls hang in a thread, wire form from that Sun. So the individual Soul of a living being is a thread that starts in the Sun and ends in the living being. But there is more to the story; the essence of individual soul, the jivatma, is also a type of illusion, because its ultimate essence is the sole being that exists, the absolute God or Paramatma.

It looks like in this belief the Souls are some concentrated form of energy, which have a will.

I?d like to make a further hypothesis trying to unite all these points of view, as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Perhaps we start as simple photon-souls. Matter is a form of Soul-energy that has slowed down. That is all molecules are endowed with some kind of primitive soul. Through evolution we acquire higher aggregation levels and at a certain level a global brain type entity is formed where the primitive souls merge to an ?individual soul?. This soul follows its path through life and death, wherein upon dying the merged concentrated individual soul leaves a body as a package of highly concentrated energy (see the image which belongs to verse VIII, 25 in the Bhagavad Gita of the Bhaktivedanta book trust; Note that I?m not an adept of that religious group) and returns via its thread back into the Sun, before starting a new life. The Christian parallel the ?going to heaven? fits in here. Hence the experience of seeing a big white light as related by those who had a near dead or out of body experience. These individual Souls can then decide to ?move? into a fertilised cell once the fertilisation occurs and start a new life (note that the indivi Soul continues to hang from the sun). After having attained the complete freeing from the material world, kaivalya, the in-the-meantime highly enriched individual soul (as regards it energy content and knowledge), can break loose from the Sun and become a Sun itself? (Perhaps that happens when we observe a solar storm).

Note that highly concentrated energy per se is not necessarily an ?individual soul? i.e. the reasoning is not bidirectionally. Laser beams, nuclear bombs etc. are not manifestations of ?individual souls? in this hypothesis. There is more to an individual soul than concentrated energy alone: it?s also the information content: the collection of all gathered experiences and knowledge. So an individual soul appears to have at least two qualities : information and energy. Or is it again that the true nature of the sole is only intelligent information, intelligence i.e. jnana and that energy is merely embedded therein? That is the more (true spritual, not secular) knowledge a soul has, the higher its energy content?

Is it then not that once we?ll have attained artificial intelligence (AI) that surpasses human intelligence, that this AI must have a Soul, by the very notion that the essence of existence is jnana, intelligence? Where does this soul then come from? does it emerge from the patterns? Will it be like the Demiurge from Gnosticism who thinks he is God?

I?d like to hear from the people who have experienced knowledge on these topics in the Samadhi state of meditation, if my hypotheses are profoundly wrong or else to what extent they are congruent with the actual state of things in this Universe.

#2

Good presentation. But the many hypotheses presented, from different sources, need to be weighed in their respective contexts.

Second most important thing to remember is a severe limitation one faces when describing such concepts close to an absoluteness. Perception, even at its objective best, is still riddled with finiteness of knowledge and handicaps of articulation. At the root of human knowledge formation is a need to classify and a reflex (almost unaware) “self vs. rest” point-of-view. So, even when you have tried to reason out the comparative hypotheses, the narrative itself needs to be discounted where you have seen the concepts in three and not ten dimensions. For example, you mention ‘photon’ from the scientific jargon and juxtapose that with ‘soul’ a philosophical phenomenon. While science dissects and divides and tries to construct a whole from the pieces; spiritual philosophy begins holistically and then tries to look at its pieces. Any meeting point between the two is a mirage.

The ten dimensions require one to recognize a gross-to-subtle hierarchy, which in the Vedas is generally taken as four-fold: physical (cell-level), astral (molecule-level) and causal (electron or particle-level). The fourth one Turiya, is considered beyond this. (Gross-to-subtle hierarchy can also be seen as various combinations of five elements- Mulatattva- grosser with more elements and subtle with lesser). Soul belongs to Turiya.

If one doesn’t want to go to (and accept, reject or debate) the hypotheses there is a simpler explanation possible. Turiya as a state has to be the most subtle and hence imperceptible. But, the process of spiritual enlightenment would require some stepping stone before “being Shiva” to remain perceivable until the transcendence. Patanjali’s Ishvara is that ‘perceivable’ version of Purusha, the imperceptible. So, Ishvara serves as a “no object” target for meditation and becomes the inner guru to take us beyond.

However, Ishvara in me cannot logically be different from Ishvara in you. To resolve this apparent conflict, a third term used is “Soul”. It is easier then to reconcile our limited thinking to mention the Soul as a component from a bundled package, called a human being each package a different entity.

Thus, while the Purusha, Ishvara and the Soul are essentially one and the same, they represent different aspects. Now we must address the concept of ‘energy’. It is very challenging to “think” that way but ‘the duality of Shiva and Shakti results only because and when we perceive the Universe through the screens of time, space and causation’. The separation of finite Shakti, the becoming factor creates energy that science knows and regards ‘its sum total remaing the same’. Energy known to science is ‘transformational’ while energy the Spirit, is ‘apparitional’; it simply exists. So, in the spiritual context we call Shiva, the Purusha, pure energy as a close approximation, implied in that is a frustration of articulation limits. Same way, light is still matter, but en"light"enment is not!

Thanks for a stimulating thought.

#3

Awware…can I add a little bit of info for you. I had an experience using the Ajna Chakra and found the inner guru, Ishvara. Ishvara joined me at the brow area…this was for a period of about 18 months, everyday. Apart from a number of things I noted…one curiosity was Ishvara really enjoyed the Sun…if I looked towards the suns rays, the inner guru would immediately come out, leaning forward to absorb the rays. And grew bigger. This happened every time I did this…Just thought it might be interesting to you.

I also saw a TV programme where an Indian old man claimed he had never eaten or drank water for his entire life and took all he needed for sustenance from the Sun. He was studied by Scientist/Doctor in experiment conditions, a special room, measurements of water for teeth cleaning washing etc were carefully measured after he use. The Doctors could not deny his claim, in that he did not have food or water yet somehow stayed fit and healthy…he was in this experiment for a long period of time, also old man was as sincere as could be in my opinion.

Loved reading all this Awware…more to tell i think x

#4

Note that in Christianity Jesus says “I’m the light”). This view is difficult to support if you realise that photons can be captured by matter (like in the retina or in photosynthesis) and are simply used to bring molecules to higher molecular orbital states: there they become part of the molecular matter and do not dwell as independent entities anymore. This would lead to the conclusion that a photon or a quantum of energy per se is not necessarily a “Soul”.

Jesus is the “light of the world” because the world is in darkness (sin). He wasn’t referring to light by which we physically see.

#5

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;43151]Good presentation. But the many hypotheses presented, from different sources, need to be weighed in their respective contexts.

Second most important thing to remember is a severe limitation one faces when describing such concepts close to an absoluteness. Perception, even at its objective best, is still riddled with finiteness of knowledge and handicaps of articulation. At the root of human knowledge formation is a need to classify and a reflex (almost unaware) “self vs. rest” point-of-view. So, even when you have tried to reason out the comparative hypotheses, the narrative itself needs to be discounted where you have seen the concepts in three and not ten dimensions. For example, you mention ‘photon’ from the scientific jargon and juxtapose that with ‘soul’ a philosophical phenomenon. While science dissects and divides and tries to construct a whole from the pieces; spiritual philosophy begins holistically and then tries to look at its pieces. Any meeting point between the two is a mirage.

The ten dimensions require one to recognize a gross-to-subtle hierarchy, which in the Vedas is generally taken as four-fold: physical (cell-level), astral (molecule-level) and causal (electron or particle-level). The fourth one Turiya, is considered beyond this. (Gross-to-subtle hierarchy can also be seen as various combinations of five elements- Mulatattva- grosser with more elements and subtle with lesser). Soul belongs to Turiya.

If one doesn’t want to go to (and accept, reject or debate) the hypotheses there is a simpler explanation possible. Turiya as a state has to be the most subtle and hence imperceptible. But, the process of spiritual enlightenment would require some stepping stone before “being Shiva” to remain perceivable until the transcendence. Patanjali’s Ishvara is that ‘perceivable’ version of Purusha, the imperceptible. So, Ishvara serves as a “no object” target for meditation and becomes the inner guru to take us beyond.

However, Ishvara in me cannot logically be different from Ishvara in you. To resolve this apparent conflict, a third term used is “Soul”. It is easier then to reconcile our limited thinking to mention the Soul as a component from a bundled package, called a human being each package a different entity.

Thus, while the Purusha, Ishvara and the Soul are essentially one and the same, they represent different aspects. Now we must address the concept of ‘energy’. It is very challenging to “think” that way but ‘the duality of Shiva and Shakti results only because and when we perceive the Universe through the screens of time, space and causation’. The separation of finite Shakti, the becoming factor creates energy that science knows and regards ‘its sum total remaing the same’. Energy known to science is ‘transformational’ while energy the Spirit, is ‘apparitional’; it simply exists. So, in the spiritual context we call Shiva, the Purusha, pure energy as a close approximation, implied in that is a frustration of articulation limits. Same way, light is still matter, but en"light"enment is not!

Thanks for a stimulating thought.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your contribution. Certain elements trigger me to reflect further on the issue which I need to study in detail to come of a better understanding. Perhaps it would have been worthwhile if I had specified that I am specifically looking for the parallel of physical and conceptual phenomena known from modern science vs. the Vedic terminology.

#6

[QUOTE=thomas;43154]Jesus is the “light of the world” because the world is in darkness (sin). He wasn’t referring to light by which we physically see.[/QUOTE]
When it comes to the great teachers of this world, I have the tendency to believe that there is more than just a symbolical meaning in their teachings. Who knows if he was not also meaning this in a literal sense. He did not provide us with a “companion guide explaining the meaning of what I said”. :wink:

#7

[QUOTE=kareng;43152]Awware…can I add a little bit of info for you. I had an experience using the Ajna Chakra and found the inner guru, Ishvara. Ishvara joined me at the brow area…this was for a period of about 18 months, everyday. Apart from a number of things I noted…one curiosity was Ishvara really enjoyed the Sun…if I looked towards the suns rays, the inner guru would immediately come out, leaning forward to absorb the rays. And grew bigger. This happened every time I did this…Just thought it might be interesting to you.

I also saw a TV programme where an Indian old man claimed he had never eaten or drank water for his entire life and took all he needed for sustenance from the Sun. He was studied by Scientist/Doctor in experiment conditions, a special room, measurements of water for teeth cleaning washing etc were carefully measured after he use. The Doctors could not deny his claim, in that he did not have food or water yet somehow stayed fit and healthy…he was in this experiment for a long period of time, also old man was as sincere as could be in my opinion.

Loved reading all this Awware…more to tell i think x[/QUOTE]
This is the beauty of yoga: direct knowledge, without cumbersome scientific experiences. As for me, whenever I have certain experiences in the pre-meditative state, I do not really know what it exactly means as I never manage to get to the real meditative state. I like the parallels; looks like Taimni knew what he was talking about. I did not really count on this type of reply as I had understood from the Siva Samhita that this type of knowledge is secret and not to be shared with the uninitiated. then again, the Siva samhita itself was also disclosed, so that Yogi then would have burdened himself with a huge Karma, as he could have foreseen that this knwoledge would one day become available to everyone. So I guess there is a certain freedom to relate our meditative experiences.

#8

I have been reading all of your articles, and although well written and very comprehensive, I can’t help but think that you may lose most of your audience in the ‘too long;didn’t read’ department. lol

In fact, when I start going off on a ‘tangent’ and try to use science/logic to describe the indescribable, most often, I will just receive semi bemused ‘wtf?’ stares or get told: ‘make like Nike and just do it’. :smiley:

As for the nature of the soul…it’s a case where nobody is right, and yet everybody is. It can be perceived as the Jivatman, Paramatman and/or various ‘forms’ in between depending on how advanced the level of consciousness is. I also believe it may be experienced in different ways according to individual receptive processes and mental conditioning.

Some may see it as a pillar of light (Jyotirlingham), some may see the Divine form of Shiva himself (and then proceed to kill him) lol, some may experience it as a very blissful feeling (with all the psychic phenomena accompanying it)…some may be humbled beyond all humility…many will just go:
D: All of The Above.

For me, the feeling of ‘not being alone’ is crucial. I am aware of a beautiful being ‘with me’ or ‘watching over me’ and that feels like pure unconditional love to the nth degree.
Of course, I will need to transcend that and piss my angel off…that will have to wait until my next lifetime though.

#9

“Nobody” knows!

Pardon me for a verbose reply. But I was trying to present the same essence: these are principles. We use labels because otherwise we don’t understand them. But then, we quarrel over the ‘right’ label, instead of understanding the principle. Amen.

#10

[QUOTE=Awwware;43178]This is the beauty of yoga: direct knowledge, without cumbersome scientific experiences. As for me, whenever I have certain experiences in the pre-meditative state, I do not really know what it exactly means as I never manage to get to the real meditative state. I like the parallels; looks like Taimni knew what he was talking about. I did not really count on this type of reply as I had understood from the Siva Samhita that this type of knowledge is secret and not to be shared with the uninitiated. then again, the Siva samhita itself was also disclosed, so that Yogi then would have burdened himself with a huge Karma, as he could have foreseen that this knwoledge would one day become available to everyone. So I guess there is a certain freedom to relate our meditative experiences.[/QUOTE]

Interesting what you have said that it is/was not to be shared…I experienced this without any knowledge of meditation, Hinduism or anything.
My practice with Ajna has been innocent on hearing about we have a third eye when i was about 11 or 12.
As a young person, i overheard how you do it so I tried to open this third eye and in time, i did. My thoughts at the time were simply, i didn’t know we had a third eye so I best open it. The technique i use is remarkably simple.

So as to this being secret and only for the initiated, my case proves this wrong, doesn’t it??

#11

Damn you guys can see lots of stuff? can you feel it to?

#12

Awwware,

“What is the nature of the Soul?”

Before even asking such a question, one will have to investigate as deeply as possible into one’s being and find out whether such an entity exists. As it is, it remains simply an idea that one has borrowed from the outside, one’s understanding does not arise out of direct perception of one’s true nature. One has accepted the idea of a “soul” without question. Certainly, it provides tremendous comfort and security to believe in it, but it remains simply a hypothesis. And one who is a seeker of Truth has to enter into the unknown without assuming anything whatsoever. One will have to put everything that one has assumed about existence aside. Be absolutely certain, once you awaken to the Truth, it is going to shatter everything that you have believed right down to the very roots. The dream is over, and now you can see things clearly as they are with open eyes.

#13

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;43508]Awwware,

“What is the nature of the Soul?”

Before even asking such a question, one will have to investigate as deeply as possible into one’s being and find out whether such an entity exists. As it is, it remains simply an idea that one has borrowed from the outside, one’s understanding does not arise out of direct perception of one’s true nature. One has accepted the idea of a “soul” without question. Certainly, it provides tremendous comfort and security to believe in it, but it remains simply a hypothesis. And one who is a seeker of Truth has to enter into the unknown without assuming anything whatsoever. One will have to put everything that one has assumed about existence aside. Be absolutely certain, once you awaken to the Truth, it is going to shatter everything that you have believed right down to the very roots. The dream is over, and now you can see things clearly as they are with open eyes.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. The term “Soul” is perhaps a bit unluckily chosen. In a further article on my blog http://awwware.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/the-tetrahedron-of-jnana/,
I also question the concept of the Soul. Therein I describe such notions rather as emergent apparent properties of the ultimate reality which goes beyond these concepts. But it is by the virtue of such concepts that we can investigate that challenge them can come to a deeper understanding at another aggregation level.

#14

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;43508]Awwware,

“What is the nature of the Soul?”

… to investigate as deeply as possible into one’s being and find out whether such an entity exists. …an idea that one has borrowed from the outside, …not arise out of direct perception … One has accepted the idea of a “soul” without question. … but it remains simply a hypothesis. … one who is a seeker of Truth …to put everything that one has assumed about existence aside.

Be absolutely certain, once you awaken to the Truth, it is going to shatter everything that you have believed right down to the very roots. The dream is over, and now you can see things clearly as they are with open eyes.[/QUOTE]

AmirMourad,
Certain points in your post stand out for some comments:

  1. one should investigate as deeply as possible - true, question is how?
  2. is soul an “entity” ?
  3. is it a borrowed idea or from Vedas which has credibility of experience?
  4. not from ‘direct perception’ - true, how does that happen?
  5. acceptance of ‘soul’ without question - correct, should not happen
  6. remains simply a hypothesis - does this imply hypothesis is alwayss false?
  7. we are seekers of truth - true.
  8. need to put all assumptions aside

My comments:
Let us strike out the easy ones. Yes, any borrowed ideas are no good if their acceptance is without question. No issues with points 3 & 5.

A tool for deeper investigation is still the thinking instruments and their process, in collaboration with the mind, until a capability of ‘direct perception’ is developed by setting the limited thinking and corrupt mind aside. (All assumptions cannot be set aside just like that because with our mind, they come bundled together). But this development is a long and hard process, unless one is naturally gifted.

In the course of deeper investigation, the first discovery is of a multi-layered self. The physical body is found to be gross and the thinking, nervous system, metabolism, desires etc form a large continuum of subtle counterparts. In the same token, brain has manas and buddhi as its subtle partners in thinking. With investgation deepening, the emphasis shifts from physical to emotional to intellectual.

But, the investigation cannot start ‘somewhere’ and wander as may please. Hence, certain idea, borroed or otherwise is needed as a hypothesis. But that is a starting point and not the end (as in a blind acceptance). Through the investigation, the hypothesis is tested. If validated, it becomes one’s truth; if not, discarded. That’s normal objective thinking process.

When the investigation capability is honed in very subtle intellectual domain, the limitations of thinking itself are realized and the mind-games are recognized. By then the hypotheses of ‘soul is a physical entity’ and ‘soul is an astral entity’ already stand rejected. Now, even ‘soul is just an (intellectual) idea’ becomes a rejected hypothesis, when experience shows that something is beyond the intellect that cannot be reached through thinking.

Thus, we come to direct perception. At long last, ‘soul is imperceptible, infinite and absolute’ becomes the last hypothesis. One’s direct perception may or may not validate this, but the journey of a seeker of truth remains such a gradual, evolutionary process. Looking back from that point to where one started it may look shatteringly different, but let us not overlook the long journey and the total transformation.

So, perception through thinking or a direct perception are not the options but represent a process graduating from kindergarten to doctorate. And hope you will agree that ‘soul’ is a doctoral hypothesis.

#15

[QUOTE=kareng;43490]Interesting what you have said that it is/was not to be shared…I experienced this without any knowledge of meditation, Hinduism or anything.
My practice with Ajna has been innocent on hearing about we have a third eye when i was about 11 or 12.
As a young person, i overheard how you do it so I tried to open this third eye and in time, i did. My thoughts at the time were simply, i didn’t know we had a third eye so I best open it. The technique i use is remarkably simple.

So as to this being secret and only for the initiated, my case proves this wrong, doesn’t it??[/QUOTE]

I have never liked any commandment, especially not imperatives to keep things secret. We’re all looking for some kind of liberation otherwise we would not be here. As long as we do no harm to others, all means are in my opinion justified to seek this liberation. So if anything can be learnt from the experiences of others, yes by all means disclose them. I find these secrecy obligation phrases in the Siva Samhita and other Vedic texts incomprehensible. As I already said, the whole yoga literature, including Patnjali is full of descriptions of potential experiences Siddhis etc. So these writers, who forbid others to disclose, are not bound by their own criteria? It does not make sense to me, but then again, I just a simple guy not having attained samadhi ever in his life. Perhaps once I arrive there I’ll be able to verify or falsify these “secrecy agreements”…(But how many lives may that still take? According to Taimni there are 777 incarnations in the human state, according to others as many as there are leaves on a tree).

#16

[QUOTE=kareng;43490]My practice with Ajna has been innocent on hearing about we have a third eye when i was about 11 or 12.
As a young person, i overheard how you do it so I tried to open this third eye and in time, i did. My thoughts at the time were simply, i didn’t know we had a third eye so I best open it. The technique i use is remarkably simple.[/QUOTE]
You must have been just like me at that tender young age…pawing over and collecting all of those many books written by Tuesday Lobsang Rampa (a.k.a Cyril Hoskin) and his Siamese cats…:evil:(I like this icon). lol

#17

[QUOTE=Awwware;43820]I have never liked any commandment, especially not imperatives to keep things secret. We’re all looking for some kind of liberation otherwise we would not be here. As long as we do no harm to others, all means are in my opinion justified to seek this liberation. So if anything can be learnt from the experiences of others, yes by all means disclose them. I find these secrecy obligation phrases in the Siva Samhita and other Vedic texts incomprehensible. As I already said, the whole yoga literature, including Patnjali is full of descriptions of potential experiences Siddhis etc. So these writers, who forbid others to disclose, are not bound by their own criteria? It does not make sense to me, but then again, I just a simple guy not having attained samadhi ever in his life. Perhaps once I arrive there I’ll be able to verify or falsify these “secrecy agreements”…(But how many lives may that still take? According to Taimni there are 777 incarnations in the human state, according to others as many as there are leaves on a tree).[/QUOTE]

I haven’t read the Siva Samhita, but in the Upanishads the injunction is not to disclose to one who is not a student. It kind of makes sense to me in a vague sort of way. In general, knowledge that has become public domain is generally not all that valuable. Knowledge that has real value is usually closely guarded.

Nowadays, books like the Upanishads and Siva Samhita have reached the public domain. Does this mean they don’t have real value? Not necessarily, because one has to really dig to get at the true meaning. Once you feel you have discovered the true meaning, do you give it away indiscriminately? I don’t think so. One more point, you don’t learn everything there is to know from books. It’s usually not hard to spot somebody who has only book knowledge and no practical experience of the subject matter.

Why do I choose to comment on this and not the original post? I haven’t read it. Too long for me right now, but I do intend to come back to it when I’m up to it.

#18

[QUOTE=Asuri;43836]I haven’t read the Siva Samhita, but in the Upanishads the injunction is not to disclose to one who is not a student. It kind of makes sense to me in a vague sort of way. In general, knowledge that has become public domain is generally not all that valuable. Knowledge that has real value is usually closely guarded.

Nowadays, books like the Upanishads and Siva Samhita have reached the public domain. Does this mean they don’t have real value? Not necessarily, because one has to really dig to get at the true meaning. Once you feel you have discovered the true meaning, do you give it away indiscriminately? I don’t think so. One more point, you don’t learn everything there is to know from books. It’s usually not hard to spot somebody who has only book knowledge and no practical experience of the subject matter.

Why do I choose to comment on this and not the original post? I haven’t read it. Too long for me right now, but I do intend to come back to it when I’m up to it.[/QUOTE]

I agree you probably don’t give your knowledge indiscriminately. However, to the genuine student there shouldn’t be too many impediments. I have sometimes felt in my life that some teachers were holding back information, whereas my intentions were sincere. I have found this very disencouraging.
The adage “when the student is ready the guru is there” may have been true once upon a time, but today does not always find its expression.

#19

Yes, I’ve experienced that sort of thing on a mundane level and it is frustrating.

I’ve just finished reading and re-reading your article, and I have to say I find it to be very thoughtful and well written. One of the best, if not [I]the[/I] best work that I’ve seen on this forum. Beyond that I can’t comment right now.

#20

[QUOTE=Asuri;43873]Yes, I’ve experienced that sort of thing on a mundane level and it is frustrating.

I’ve just finished reading and re-reading your article, and I have to say I find it to be very thoughtful and well written. One of the best, if not [I]the[/I] best work that I’ve seen on this forum. Beyond that I can’t comment right now.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the encouragement. It is interesting to see what types of different reactions you get if you come up with a certain hypothesis.
Some people react by claiming that the article should have discussed and questioned the existence of a soul at all; a kind of complete PhD thesis or so, others claim that an article is too lengthy to be read etc. You can’t please everybody after all. perhaps it’s worthwhile including a disclaimer next time. My philosophy is to brainstorm ideas in a non-exhaustive manner. From the reactions I get, I can sometimes get stimuli to get to a better understanding at a different aggregation level. I do not in any sense claim to be exhaustive or to present a PhD thesis on this forum. It remind me of my time in the laboratory, where I had a colleague who wanted to probe mentally the hypotheses he made in a great detail. he almost never came to experiences. I learnt it is better to experiment in reality with an incomplete knowledge; by making mistakes you’ll learn faster than from trying to anticipate all possible mistakes. The same I believe is true on the path of yoga.