An odd but fitting analogy for the soul

[Eric11235]

Vannakam,

This is going to sound odd, but with regards to the body and the soul I would like to posit an analogy. That is of A clear glass of milk.

In this analogy, the transparent glass is the soul and the body is the milk.

In my conception, the soul is constant, pure, free and immovable.

The body is opaque, changes with time and is unlike the soul rather inconstant.

I believe that the soul is intangible despite this analogy,

I thought it was an interesting thought, and if anyone has any flaws to point out , or expound on it further I would be gladdened greatly

Namaste

[Adhvagat]

Wouldn't it be the reverse?

The soul is the essence, what possess all the qualities, therefore the milk.

And it molds itself according to the container, the glass or the body.

[kallol]

Wouldn't it be the reverse?

The soul is the essence, what possess all the qualities, therefore the milk.

And it molds itself according to the container, body or glass.

Can soul possess qualities ?

I thought body mind complex has all qualities. Soul is only a reflection of the super soul through the mind to the body. This is pure beyond our imagination, which is attribute-less, eternal, all pervading, unchanging, etc.

The analogy is the electricity through all gadgets. Gadgets have properties but electricity is the enabler.

However two together is the system which functions.

[devotee]

This is going to sound odd, but with regards to the body and the soul I would like to posit an analogy. That is of A clear glass of milk.

In this analogy, the transparent glass is the soul and the body is the milk.

In my conception, the soul is constant, pure, free and immovable.

The body is opaque, changes with time and is unlike the soul rather inconstant.

I believe that the soul is intangible despite this analogy,

I thought it was an interesting thought, and if anyone has any flaws to point out , or expound on it further I would be gladdened greatly


From Upanishad's point of view this analogy is flawed. I think you are trying to see Soul by trying to match its description in BG, Chapater-2.

If you say that Soul is constant, pure, free and immovable ... it becomes Advaita view which imho, explains Atman (Self) like nothing else. The Atman or Super-soul is One ... and there is nothing except that One. As it is everywhere ... it never moves ... as nothing exists except Atman nothing can be added to it or taken out from it ... so it will always remain the way it is ... i.e. it is permanent & unchanging. Within that Atman ... there are vibrations which "create" individual souls. These individual soul is in essence not-different from the Super-soul but it appears to be different as it is capable of having a separate "i". This individualized soul has no permanent existence .. it arises in the Super-soul and again merges back into it.

From Dvaita (dualists) point of view, the individual souls are permanent ... but they don't believe that this individualised soul is non-moving and unchanging.

OM

[wundermonk]

Can soul possess qualities ?

From a Nyaya-Viseshika view point, yes. The school recognizes entities such as dravya [substance], guna [qualities] and karma [action].

The Nyaya argues that the soul is a dravya which possesses gunas and karmas. I have begun a series of explanations of the Nyaya Darshana here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8328). I plan to add more on that thread in due course.

[kallol]

If the definition of soul is consciousness + mind, it is obvious that the self or soul will have qualities.

If the definition of soul is consciousness only then I am not sure, how I can put attributes to it.

Again there are so many theories out of different way the whole system is defined.

We always tend to cling to the ones which we can explain, assimilate and feel comfortable.

So you will have the approaches to the TRUTH from different directions and different theories.

[Eric11235]

Vannakam,


The point I was trying to make is simply the dichotomy of the body vs. the soul in this analogy. I posit it because I do ascribe to Advaita and in fact I had trouble with the analogy for the reason of Atman/Brahman Dichotomy.

I see ultimate reality as all existing within itself, as in everything is everything, so there is another flaw in my analogy that I could not reconcile. But the point is, the body changes but the soul while accruing karma never changes its ultimate form.

I see the body as a partition for the soul, but one that is constantly changing and although with form is a malleable object in the physical universe whereas the soul is constant (to me).

This is why this particular analogy poses both a challenge and makes sense to me. I'm trying to think of a way to describe the soul to somebody as I conceive it in ways everybody can understand which is another reason I posited it.

However, I would like to thank all contributors thus far as this has been fascinating in its insights

Namaste

[Eric11235]

I also ascribe to a Panentheistic conception of the almighty

[devotee]

The point I was trying to make is simply the dichotomy of the body vs. the soul in this analogy. I posit it because I do ascribe to Advaita and in fact I had trouble with the analogy for the reason of Atman/Brahman Dichotomy.

I see ultimate reality as all existing within itself, as in everything is everything, so there is another flaw in my analogy that I could not reconcile. But the point is, the body changes but the soul while accruing karma never changes its ultimate form.

I see the body as a partition for the soul, but one that is constantly changing and although with form is a malleable object in the physical universe whereas the soul is constant (to me).

This is why this particular analogy poses both a challenge and makes sense to me. I'm trying to think of a way to describe the soul to somebody as I conceive it in ways everybody can understand which is another reason I posited it.

However, I would like to thank all contributors thus far as this has been fascinating in its insights


Classically, Atman and soul have been explained with the model of Ocean (as Atman/Self) and the waves (souls) or the Infinite Space (Atman) and the space within a pot (souls).

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


But the point is, the body changes but the soul while accruing karma never changes its ultimate form.


This, I think needs to be thought through. Karma resides in the field of the 3 guṇa-s. This ātman is perfectly ~stainless~ as the wise say. Completely aloof from any influence of the 3 guṇa-s.

Now at times people tend to call the soul jīva. This is not the best name for ātman and why at times things get mixed up. Hence the great interest in this understanding and to insure one gets the concepts and ideas aligned properly.

praṇām

[Eric11235]

Thank you yajvan for a most insightful post.

I am of the same opinion, but I'm not so good at articulating it

[Kismet]

My take, as of now:

We are persons in that our soul is construed as composite. To say of one that he is a monad of consciousness is to render him or her as impersonal. For the distinguishing feature of a person is that he is not passive but active; the activity springing from the interplay of variegated elements and faculties. But we are persons, or else no one should be treated any differently than non-persons. And consciousness is passive; a silent Witness. We are not doers of anything, but insofar as this passivity gets intermingled with the sense of doership we are personal beings.

This personhood however is a superimposition and so is not the locus of our being in that Atman is the true reference to "You" or "I." This is pure, unconditioned attention and love, but not divorced from a personal context of activity.

So really we are both one and the other. There is no contradiction. It is coming to the same thing from differing angles.