Start of the 'Atma'/Soul

[jignyAsu]

In Vedanta, the soul is beginningless and so is its Karma. Obviously, it follows that the number of souls must be finite.

How so? The number of souls are infinite and hence there's no such paradox. Whether our finite minds can digest infinity...now that's another thought.

[wundermonk]

In Vedanta, the soul is beginningless and so is its Karma. Obviously, it follows that the number of souls must be finite.

Can you provide the syllogism? Otherwise, this is a non sequitur.

Even if some souls will attain liberation, we have a paradox because

1) The soul is beginningless.
2. Liberation is a specific point in time (happens utmost once).

and therefore, it may be argued that any period of time required for liberation should already have passed, in which case, all souls that can be liberated should be liberated

Can you provide the syllogism? Otherwise, this is a non sequitur.

[wundermonk]

In semitic beliefs, the soul has exactly one life (always as a human). The point of creation of the soul = time of birth. However, the soul , once created, never dies and survives past the point of material death, retaining memory of this single life, forever.

No. This shows a misunderstanding of semitic thought. For instance, do you know on what basis souls are burnt in eternal hellfire if they do not accept Allah as the One True God?

[shiv.somashekhar]

How so? The number of souls are infinite and hence there's no such paradox. Whether our finite minds can digest infinity...now that's another thought.

1. Let me rephrase. With Semitic beliefs, souls are created as new people are born and therefore the total soul count can increase with time (with no theoretical limit). Not so with Vedanta, as no new souls are created.

2. This however, has nothing to do with the paradox. The two topics are completely different.

Can you provide the syllogism? Otherwise, this is a non sequitur.

Please read the post again. It has already been provided.

[wundermonk]

Please read the post again. It has already been provided.

I took that trouble.

In Vedanta, the soul is beginningless and so is its Karma. Obviously, it follows that the number of souls must be finite

This is not a syllogism. Just because you use the term "obvious", it does not become so. So, I would request you to lay out this "obvious" deduction in syllogistic form.

Even if some souls will attain liberation, we have a paradox because

1) The soul is beginningless.
2. Liberation is a specific point in time (happens utmost once).

and therefore, it may be argued that any period of time required for liberation should already have passed, in which case, all souls that can be liberated should be liberated by now.

Ah. So, I DO see the argument in this case. Now, "any period of time required for liberation" is open from one side - the past. So, the collection of words "period of time required for liberation" is undefined. Unless you define this collection of words, the argument can not pass.

[shiv.somashekhar]

This is not a syllogism. Just because you use the term "obvious", it does not become so. So, I would request you to lay out this "obvious" deduction in syllogistic form.

No, I meant the paradox only. On the finite vs. infinite souls, I rephrased my statement and clarified the paradox is independent of this topic.

Ah. So, I DO see the argument in this case. Now, "any period of time required for liberation" is open from one side - the past. So, the collection of words "period of time required for liberation" is undefined. Unless you define this collection of words, the argument can not pass.

It is quite simple. The period of time is either finite or infinite. If it is the former, my argument holds ( that is, everyone should have been liberated by now). If it is the latter, then no one will ever be liberated, which goes against the premise of liberation.

[wundermonk]

1. Let me rephrase. With Semitic beliefs, souls are created as new people are born and therefore the total soul count can increase with time (with no theoretical limit).

No. This is again a misrepresentation of Semitic thought. Again I ask, do you know the significance of the following Quranic verse?

And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware."

This specifically talks about a covenant all us souls supposedly made with Allah pre-creation.

Now, do YOU remember having made this covenent? I do not.

Secondly, Allah does NOT create souls just moments before a new person is born. The covenant above is considered to have occurred pre-creation.

Would you like to reformulate your thoughts in light of such new information?

[wundermonk]

No, I meant the paradox only. On the finite vs. infinite souls, I rephrased my statement and clarified it is separate from the paradox.

Ok. What is your argument on why your two antecedents imply that the number of souls is finite? It appears you are just stating them.

It is quite simple. The period of time is either finite or infinite. If it is the former, my argument holds. If it is the latter, then no one will ever be liberated, which goes against the premise of liberation.

You are framing this circularly. It is true that finite set of causes and effects can happen in finite time. However, infinite set of causes and effects can happen in infinite time.

So, if you claim "no one will be liberated", my argument would be, "no one will be liberated" starting from when?

Please take time to read this thread. Arguments for the eternality of the universe are presented there. Since liberation of souls is something that is held to happen in time/universe, many of the points raised in that thread are relevant here.

[awaraarawa]

Thank you for the education and the interesting perspectives shared thus far. It is certainly enlightening for a 'beginner' (relatively speaking ofcourse).

The analogies shared are illustrative as well.....but I have to wonder if I got you folks started with the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.

Yes, the wave is not separate from the ocean just as much as the legs of a chair are an integral part of the chair when attached to the chair (rather than just being pieces of wood when stored independent of the chair).

My inquiry was more along the lines of....if my soul/atma is indeed (an extension of) God, why do I need to perform any form of Yoga (Raja, Bhakti, Jnana....) and improve my Karma and undertake all of the other dharmic duties and activities? Mind you, I am not arguing about doing the right things in life.....just wondering if am already (a part of) God (my jiva atma), why bother? By not doing the duties I am supposed to (or worse by doing evil), I am not changing God (represented by my soul) to stop being God. God is always God regardless of what I do or not do.....surely, God (represented by my soul) is not earning bad karma and getting moved to a lower form of life? And that is the paradox I am trying to sort out....thanks to the query of a 12 year old.

And that is also where the question about the start of the Atma comes from i.e. why did my soul come into being? If I could put on hold the different philosophical views and perspectives of dvaita, advaita, maya, etc....the core question remains the same, why has God taken a form (me) and why is God (my soul) peforming Dharmic acts to attain Moksha to be with himself (God) again?! And what causes these cycles to start?

You know the logical deduction from the above is - do whatever you want and you will still be God.....and certainly that does not sound right.

[wundermonk]

My inquiry was more along the lines of....if my soul/atma is indeed (an extension of) God, why do I need to perform any form of Yoga (Raja, Bhakti, Jnana....) and improve my Karma and undertake all of the other dharmic duties and activities? Mind you, I am not arguing about doing the right things in life.....just wondering if am already (a part of) God (my jiva atma), why bother? By not doing the duties I am supposed to (or worse by doing evil), I am not changing God (represented by my soul) to stop being God. God is always God regardless of what I do or not do.....surely, God (represented by my soul) is not earning bad karma and getting moved to a lower form of life? And that is the paradox I am trying to sort out....thanks to the query of a 12 year old.

It is not Hindu belief that we are God.

What is claimed by Advaita (and to a degree by most other theistic schools of Hinduism) is that the jivatman's essence is Paramatman's (God's if you will) essence. This essence is "pure consciousness". This "pure consciousness" is one. So, in Advaita, there is a universal single consciousness. Now, how Advaita reaches this position is another debate but a relatively straight-forward way of reaching this conclusion is to first study "Samkhya" Darshana. Samkhyan purusha is Advaitin's jivatman. Purusha in Samkhya is a non-agent. So, yes, in one sense you ARE right that essence of the jivatman (in Advaita) is already blissful. This is also the reason why Hinduism focuses so much on delving deeper within ourselves as the means to attain moksha. We have to reach the essence of jivatman and that requires delving into the depths of our"selves" instead of doing outward action. Even though the means of attaining final moksha differs between schools of thought all means of attaining moksha (sravana/manana/nidhidhyasana) are accorded some validity across schools.

Now, the jivatman never was Paramatman in the temporal past. There is an infinite temporal regress of Jivatman - Avidya - Jivatman - Avidya - . "Avidya" in this context means wrong perception and is the cause of transmigration of the jivatman. Now, this Avidya is a positive entity. The reason to undergo Raja/Bhakti/Jnana Yoga is to remove this Avidya. When Avidya is removed, the Jivatman realizes it already was Paramatman. A common analogy is that of a frantic woman who does not know that a necklace is around her neck and is searching hither-thither. She never LOST her necklace at any point in time! She only had to look and search within herself first.

And that is also where the question about the start of the Atma comes from i.e. why did my soul come into being? If I could put on hold the different philosophical views and perspectives of dvaita, advaita, maya, etc....the core question remains the same, why has God taken a form (me) and why is God (my soul) peforming Dharmic acts to attain Moksha to be with himself (God) again?! And what causes these cycles to start?

This presumes that there is a "start"ing point sometime in the past. Unfortunately, in Hinduism, there is no start for things. Things always were such. Time cannot begin in any meaningful sense because then there was a point in time when there was no time rendering the idea of time having a "beginning" for time meaningless.

This is a very interesting question and answers to this question will take one to the very heart of Hindu philosophy. So, do feel free to ask away if anything above is unclear.