Samkhya

The way I define the soul is in accordance with findings in neuroscience. In other words, advances in brain science does not threaten dualism as I conceive it. Though I believe in a soul, I am aware that mental phenomena need the brain to manifest themselves, at least as long as the soul identifies itself with the body.

I don't know whether people in a vegetative state still have a soul. Perhaps the soul has gone away. But the soul will come back as soon as the brain can sustain again psychic activity. The soul is tied to people who sleep, because the soul mistakenly identifies itself with some parts of the matter, namely our body.

The article which you are referring to defines brain death as the cessation of brain activity. It does not define brain death as the disappearance of one of the components of the brain (though such disappearance may be the CAUSE of brain death). It's like... a dialogue ends up when there are no more words being exchanged. What ends up is a relation between those who talk. We would not say that a dialogue ends up when one of persons involved disappears... (though for one person to go away may be the CAUSE of the end of the dialogue) A cause is not to be confused with a definition. Likewise, brain death is the end of a set of relations between the components of the brain. What is called "activity".

You don't even bother to comment on my proof...

I have borrowed two books on Indian philosophy. I will read them and then I will explain what is Sâmkhya.

Let's begin by distinguishing between mind and soul. Mind is the sum of subjective phenomena that we perceive within our body, and especially within our heads. These phenomena include pleasure, pain, memories, wills, reasonings, etc. Soul is the subject that perceives it. Soul is the inner witness. Soul is Purusha, as taught by Sâmkhya philosophy (which is not hopelessly false, upon some reflection). It is a fact that each person has a unique viewpoint on the world. Each person witnesses the world and its own body and mind in a unique way. And this unique viewpoint each person has goes on existing even if the body undergoes radical changes. What I want to know is: is the brain the support, the base of soul? If the brain is the support of soul, what in the brain gives rise to soul? Is it merely the components of the brains (atoms, molecules, cells) or is it the relationship between all these components? It can't be merely the components, because in a corpse, there are exactly the same components as in a living body, but there is no soul in the corpse. If the components alone gave rise to the soul, it would give rise to it as long as the components are together. But it does not happen. Beside, the matter out of which the body is made in the youth is not the same as that out of which the old body is made. But the witness, the unique viewpoint on the world, has remained the same. If the components of the brain gave rise to the soul, there would be a different woul in the youth and in the old age. So it can't be just the components that give rise to the soul. Is it the relationship between the components? For instance, communications between brain cells? But the problem is that, if it is this relationship, it can be duplicated. It can be reproduced, multiplied. It can be in a thought experiment at least. Here is an analogy: suppose I draw a circle with a chalk. I tell you that the chalk out of which the circle is made does not matter. What matters is the relationship between the parts of the circle: the center and the bend (the perimeter). What matter is that each point on the perimeter is at the same distance from the same. Bearing this in mind, you can pick up your own chalk and draw another circle. You can also draw a circle with a pencil, and so on. Here we are saying something similar with respect to the brain: what matter is how the parts interact. Therefore, there can be many instances of a given pattern of interactions. But the problem is that the unique viewpoint a person has on the world can't be multiplied. It is unique. I can't conceive of seeing me from the inside and from the outside at the same time. I cannot conceive of dreaming and not dreaming at the same time. Such absurdities would happen if my viewpoint were multiplied. We can't conceive of many viewpoints on the world that would be, at the same time, a unique viewpoint. Therefore, the relationship between the components of the brain does not account for the viewpoint or witness being unique. Therefore neither the mere components of the brain, nor the relationship between them can be the support of the soul. Therefore, the soul does not come from the brain. The soul is an independent part of the person.

You did not take into account my last post. Anyway... if there is no free will, no praise is fair. Nothing can be praiseworthy if what someone does was not the result of his conscious will.

Beyond all cosmological details that are not supported by any evidence (how Prakriti evolves, the three Gunas), perhaps the core of Sâmkhya is true, its teaching on the meaning of life. Perhaps it is our association with the matter which brings about all our suffering. It is our being subject to its mindless laws and forces, that we cannot change. Salvation would consist of getting separated from the matter and to live without it. I find this view more interesting than that of the Vedanta. But there remains one important question to be answered: how to get separated from the matter? How to get out of the hole? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

We owe respect to Sâmkhya for its effort to probe into the world by its own means.

The spirit of Sâmkhya is to put reason above the authority of Scriptures. Sâmkhya used reason in an awkward way, but it deserves nonetheless our respect.

I have no demonstration that Sâmkhya's tenets are false, but there is no evidence that they are true, and Sâmkhya, which seems to be a cosmological system (whereas Vedanta is a metaphysical one), is very far from the scientific view of the world. But Sâmkhya says something interesting: mind (not to be confused with the soul or "Purusha") comes from matter ("prakriti") And today, most of scientists think that yes, mind depends upon matter. However, a scholar said that Sâmkhya could be, not a cosmological system, but a kind of theory of knowledge. Thus the concept "Prakriti" would not mean "Nature". At any rate, I chose my name not because I to Sâmkhya, but because I find it funny.

Dear Cyber-Hindus, Here is what I have read on a website on hinduism: ««« The true reincarnating entity is the causal body, wherein our karmic impressions are stored. There is not a simple correspondence of one soul or causal body or physical body. It is possible for one soul to take more than one birth at the same time, either high or low. »»» http://www.hindunet.org/reincarnation/index.htm I don't believe in Reincarnation because there are cases when the previous personality is still alive when the new personality is born. It did not make sense to me. But what I read now would mean that the same soul can inhabit two bodies at the same time? Please tell me what the passage quoted means.

Sâmkhya is one of the first rationalistic systems of the world, that arose roughly at the same time as the first Greek philosophers. Its tenets are hopelessly false, but what matters is the spirit of Sâmkhya.

http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/SankhyaKarika.htm That should help.

And what if scientists discovered a 12th dimension? Would it be the proof that hindouism is wrong?

I thought that the Gita should have taught you non-violence.

Your behavior is disappointing and unacceptable. You don't give a good picture of your religion. Please try to get better.

Who is in state of ignorance? Us or Brahman? But it can't be Brahman, because It is all-knowing. But it can't be us, because that would mean that we have an existence independently of Brahman. Either way, Advaita is wrong.

««« by some of the best of New Testament scholars »»» Yes and the other ones said the contrary. Where does it lead us?

««« You just too stupid to understand ... »»» Your next life will be harsh: you're accumulating bad karma. But hell and karma are just inventions designed to deter weak people from sinning. Strong people behave rightly because they find goodness rewarding in itself.

What you say is not clear... Who is in a state of ignorance? Us or Brahman? But for advaita, it makes no difference, because we are brahman. So Brahman is in a state of ignorance.

""" I have NEVER come across such cases before. Mind showing me some of this case you say had existed? """ I have only read that such cases exist in a journal of psychical research. The author gave no more details, unfortunately. I can tell you where I found this information. I have spoken of that to a scholar who has studied reincarnation, and he has not heard of it either. """ I think you are tainted by Buddhist principles too much. Buddhism is tainted by atheists principles which deny Souls, Reincarnations and God.""" It depends on which buddhism you are speaking of... Personally I feel more at ease with souls and God. However, I worry about whether these beliefs are grounded on evidence.

""" I think Vedanta includes reincarnation as one of it's beliefs. """ And nevertheless, I read a book on the Vedanta saying that reincarnation (or perhaps karma) is not truly vedantic. """ What did you mean by vednatic approach to God? """ It is how vedantins conceive God (or in whatever way you call the Absolute, Brahman, Ishvara, etc.), his nature and his relationship with the world. It is also important to say how God is involved in our lives. """ What are you talking about? How do you explain that? How does that mean no reincanration? Can you please elaborate further? """ If really previous personality were not dead when the new personality is born, then it means that the soul associated with the previous personality could not have left his body with his memories and his psychological traits and gone into a new one. A soul is always the soul of ONE body. To say that there are two identical personalities alive means that the information from a person to the next was not transmitted by the passage of the soul. It was probably transmitted by extra-sensory perceptions. You may object: but all that it proves is that SOME so-called cases of reincarnation are not genuine. I reply that the most reasonable (after the Ockham's razor) theory is the simplest. But it is simpler to explain ALL so-called cases of reincarnation in the same way. Otherwise, how can we distinguish the true cases from the false ones? We can't observe the soul leaving a body and going into another one. You are still free to believe in reincarnation, but this belief is rationally groundless. Regards

Hello all, But after some reflections, I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation is not plausible. It's because there are cases when the new personality is born BEFORE the previous personality has died... This means that there is no soul which has gone from a body to another one. So-called cases of reincarnation can be explained by psychic powers. But I am more interested in the vedantic approach to God. It is what I would like to keep of hinduism.

Thank you to you and to maadhav for these explanations on jati. I would like to know: 1) How hinduism faces the problem of evil and whether his solution is more plausible than that of Christianity 2) Whether Brahman is the stuff out of which mundane things are made or It is distinct from the world as the Christian God is. I know that Hindus disagree on this matter (Advaitins against dvaitins). Where is the truth? 3) What the nature of the soul is 4) What Moksha consists of Regards, S