Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 << David Bozzi: When does the soul enter the body? >> --- Edgar Cayce said the soul enters the body a few days before or after birth. Before that it may be nearby even prior to conception and may influence the formation of the embryo in the uterus. xan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Dan: I wonder about the human urge to debate whether and how a "soul" would "come in" to a body. Certainly the boundary between what is "my soul" and what is not "my soul" is essentially the same boundary as what is "me" and "not me" in this world. If we resolve one, we resolve the other. The important issue is understanding how this boundary operates and the degree to which it is real or illusory. Xan: As I see it the only boundary is identity. Is the identity an idea and as such false and separating, or is it the natural, singular original beingness. Beingness may express itself in forms that do not lose awareness. Humans seem to be the only forms with a mind that does, as far as I know. Dan: The life energies animate the body as they animate the cells. There is no beginning or end to this energy. This energy includes "atoms" and "space" as well as "cells." The process of life is what it is. Xan: I don't think we should assume that Life and Soul are the same. Life, as formless intelligent existence, is what life forms arise from. Souls may arise as well as non-physical forms to inhabit and evolve through physical bodies. What else is lila? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 mumblecat wrote: > We all have small and very well hidden vestiges of > the opposite gender's primary sex characteristics > and these vestiges can sometimes become inflamed, > cancerous or not entirely destroyed so as to cause > physical problems later in life. Is this why some men watch soap-operas and some women make a lot of money? David (playing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > I enjoyed reading this clarification of biological process. > It seems useful to observe this process. > I wonder about the human urge to debate whether and how a "soul" > would "come in" to a body. Certainly the boundary between what is "my > soul" and what is not "my soul" is essentially the same boundary as what is > "me" and "not me" in this world. If we resolve one, we resolve the other. > The important issue is understanding how this boundary operates and the > degree to which it is real or illusory. > > The life energies animate the body as they animate the cells. There is no > beginning or end to this energy. This energy includes "atoms" and "space" > as well as "cells." The process of life is what it is. > Marcia: Do you think so Dan? I am not at all sure I feel this way. It could be semantics but to me "me" is like the clothes we put on in order blend and operate in the world of the senses and soul is something else altogether. Soul is what is real and can be developed through some process of digesting "me" or becoming passive to it's antics. In Glo's image soul is what gets plugged into the outlet and can light up the personality or "me" if the personality is passive to receive the light and not stand in it's way creating a shadow. Marcia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, David Bozzi wrote: > > > > << David Bozzi: When does the soul enter the body? > After you answer the question "who is there to enter the body" then you might have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Xanma wrote: > Xanma > > << David Bozzi: When does the soul enter the body? Not my quote. I wouldn't ask such a question. (see metaphor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 "Debora A. Orf" wrote: (misquoting) > > > << David Bozzi: When does the soul enter the body? > > > > After you answer the question "who is there to enter the body" then you > might have an answer. The above was a misquote. I'd never ask such a question. See metaphor. : ) (there is no 'when' a soul enters the body) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 >Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > >> I enjoyed reading this clarification of biological process. >> It seems useful to observe this process. >> I wonder about the human urge to debate whether and how a "soul" >> would "come in" to a body. Certainly the boundary between what is "my >> soul" and what is not "my soul" is essentially the same boundary as what is >> "me" and "not me" in this world. If we resolve one, we resolve the other. >> The important issue is understanding how this boundary operates and the >> degree to which it is real or illusory. >> >> The life energies animate the body as they animate the cells. There is no >> beginning or end to this energy. This energy includes "atoms" and "space" >> as well as "cells." The process of life is what it is. >> > >Marcia: > >Do you think so Dan? I am not at all sure I feel this >way. It could be semantics but to me "me" is like >the clothes we put on in order blend and operate in >the world of the senses and soul is something else >altogether. Soul is what is real and can be developed >through some process of digesting "me" or becoming >passive to it's antics. > >In Glo's image soul is what gets plugged into the outlet >and can light up the personality or "me" if the personality >is passive to receive the light and not stand in it's way >creating a shadow. Marcia - Yes, I definitely think so. This, for me, is the essence of nonduality. Addressing the distinction between "me" and "not-me." This is the same as the distinction between what is "my soul" and whatever is defined as "not my soul." I see your distinction between "me" and "the soul." Yet making this distinction hasn't resolved the issue in my mind. What would make your soul be yours and my soul be mine? What would separate soul from world? To me it's a question asked at the boundary. What is this boundary about? How was it set? How is the one who is on this side of the boundary other than the one who is on that side of the boundary? Who is the One who set the first (original or archetypal) boundary? Dan > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >Your anytime, anywhere sports store. Fogdog Sports. ><a href=" http://clickme./ad/fogdog1 ">Click Here</a> > >------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >Yes, I definitely think so. This, for me, is the essence of > nonduality. Addressing the distinction between "me" and "not-me." > This is the same as the distinction between what is "my soul" and > whatever is defined as "not my soul." I see your distinction > between "me" and "the soul." Yet making this distinction hasn't resolved the > issue in my mind. What would make your soul be yours and my soul be mine? > What would separate soul from world? To me it's a question asked at the > boundary. > What is this boundary about? How was it set? How is the one who is on this > side of the boundary other than the one who is on that side of the boundary? > Who is the One who set the first (original or archetypal) boundary? > Marcia: Dan, we certainly are not going to answer these questions here and now on this mail list. But I would certainly appreciate an ongoing quest together. It seems to me that we need to answer your question of what would separate soul from the world before attempting to answer what separates, if anything, one soul from another. Can we agree on that? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Marcia, I see it as coming down to understanding the first (original, archetypal) boundary. >From this boundary, all others emanate. Resolve the one, and all are resolved. Any boundary problem (e.g. within oneself, between oneself and a daughter [just an example], between me and you, between a group and another group, between body and soul, between life and death, between being and nonbeing, between your soul and my soul) any boundary problem can be investigated. Ultimately, that boundary problem will be connected with some other related boundary problem. Any question that is raised, ultimately leads to the one, original boundary issue. This original issue may be framed as the boundary between me and not-me or between the soul and God, or between being and not-being. Regardless of the words attached, it's the same issue. Love, Dan > >Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > >>Yes, I definitely think so. This, for me, is the essence of > >> nonduality. Addressing the distinction between "me" and "not-me." >> This is the same as the distinction between what is "my soul" and >> whatever is defined as "not my soul." I see your distinction >> between "me" and "the soul." Yet making this distinction hasn't resolved the >> issue in my mind. What would make your soul be yours and my soul be mine? >> What would separate soul from world? To me it's a question asked at the >> boundary. >> What is this boundary about? How was it set? How is the one who is on this >> side of the boundary other than the one who is on that side of the boundary? >> Who is the One who set the first (original or archetypal) boundary? >> > >Marcia: > >Dan, we certainly are not going to answer these questions >here and now on this mail list. But I would certainly appreciate >an ongoing quest together. > >It seems to me that we need to answer your question of what >would separate soul from the world before attempting to >answer what separates, if anything, one soul from another. >Can we agree on that? :-) > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members? > >Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more! > >------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 I believe this just may be the same discussion you are having with Ivan. Am I correct? :-) Interesting. Intuitively I grasp that what you are suggesting is that either all boundaries reflect the original boundary issue or that all boundaries are on the same level. But underneath that is the assumption that a boundary is a problem that needs fixing somehow. Is that correct? Also boundary issues between people is different than junctures between levels. I see the soul on a higher level than the personality. Different sort of boundary. I guess you didn't agree with the first thing to be agreed upon. You are so tactful in your disagreeing. :-) Marcia Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > Marcia, > I see it as coming down to understanding the > first (original, archetypal) boundary. > > >From this boundary, all others emanate. > > Resolve the one, and all are resolved. > > Any boundary problem (e.g. within oneself, between oneself > and a daughter [just an example], between me and you, between > a group and another group, between body and soul, between > life and death, between being and nonbeing, between your soul > and my soul) any boundary problem can be investigated. > Ultimately, that boundary problem will be connected with some > other related boundary problem. Any question that is > raised, ultimately leads to the one, original boundary issue. > This original issue may be framed as the boundary between me and not-me or > between the soul and God, or between being and not-being. Regardless > of the words attached, it's the same issue. > > Love, Dan > > > > >Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > > > >>Yes, I definitely think so. This, for me, is the essence of > > > >> nonduality. Addressing the distinction between "me" and "not-me." > >> This is the same as the distinction between what is "my soul" and > >> whatever is defined as "not my soul." I see your distinction > >> between "me" and "the soul." Yet making this distinction hasn't > resolved the > >> issue in my mind. What would make your soul be yours and my soul be mine? > >> What would separate soul from world? To me it's a question asked at the > >> boundary. > >> What is this boundary about? How was it set? How is the one who is on > this > >> side of the boundary other than the one who is on that side of the > boundary? > >> Who is the One who set the first (original or archetypal) boundary? > >> > > > >Marcia: > > > >Dan, we certainly are not going to answer these questions > >here and now on this mail list. But I would certainly appreciate > >an ongoing quest together. > > > >It seems to me that we need to answer your question of what > >would separate soul from the world before attempting to > >answer what separates, if anything, one soul from another. > >Can we agree on that? :-) > > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members? > > > >Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more! > > > >------ > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > The planet's eCenter for health & well-being. PlanetRX. > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/planetrx1 ">Click Here</a> > > ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 At 03:42 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote: >Xanma > > Dan: I wonder about the human urge to debate whether and how a "soul" > would "come in" to a body. Certainly the boundary between what is "my > soul" and what is not "my soul" is essentially the same boundary as what is > "me" and "not me" in this world. If we resolve one, we resolve the other. > The important issue is understanding how this boundary operates and the > degree to which it is real or illusory. > >Xan: As I see it the only boundary is identity. Is the identity an idea and >as such false and separating, or is it the natural, singular original >beingness. The origin is beyond being or nonbeing. It is thus beyond identity. Conferring identity on all that is, it has none itself. This beingness you describe would be unbounded, hence no identity. >Beingness may express itself in forms that do not lose awareness. Like Obi Wan in Star Wars? Did you notice how he was flickering? Forms have to flicker because they're objects of perception. A form of awareness emerges from the ground of no-form. The awareness isn't in the form apart from the ground. The form is changing instant to instant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 At 12:45 PM 7/16/99 -0700, you wrote: >Marcia Paul <jacpa > >I believe this just may be the same discussion you are >having with Ivan. Am I correct? :-) Not exactly, but probably related. That discussion seems to have something to do with a "center" of some sort. I guess you could say that ending the center is ending identification within a boundary. > >Interesting. Intuitively I grasp that what you are suggesting >is that either all boundaries reflect the original boundary >issue or that all boundaries are on the same level. The first. Boundaries between levels are also extensions of the original boundary. But >underneath that is the assumption that a boundary is a >problem that needs fixing somehow. Is that correct? Good point. The problem is situating oneself on one side of a boundary, not the boundary itself. >Also boundary issues between people is different than >junctures between levels. I see the soul on a higher >level than the personality. Different sort of boundary. The difference between one type of boundary issue and another type is itself another form of a boundary. If who I am isn't situated on any side of any boundary issues, that realization affects all of the boundary issues. Like Jesus saying I am in you as you are in me as I am in the Father. > >I guess you didn't agree with the first thing to be agreed >upon. You are so tactful in your disagreeing. :-) Are you daring me to be tactless? It'll damn well never happen, not as long as I'm in this *!%# personality. Dan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 Discussing soul entering body reminds of the analogy of a vacuum "entering" a jar by pumping out air. "At best" an intelligent being can recognize no-thingness as its core and for a few it will become "more" than a recognition. As nature is a giant recycling machine, it keeps up (karmic) threads until they are finished. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 << Dan: I wonder about the human urge to debate whether and how a "soul" > would "come in" to a body. Certainly the boundary between what is "my > soul" and what is not "my soul" is essentially the same boundary as what is > "me" and "not me" in this world. If we resolve one, we resolve the other. > The important issue is understanding how this boundary operates and the > degree to which it is real or illusory. > >Xan: As I see it the only boundary is identity. Is the identity an idea and as such false and separating, or is it the natural, singular original >beingness. The origin is beyond being or nonbeing. It is thus beyond identity. Conferring identity on all that is, it has none itself. This beingness you describe would be unbounded, hence no identity. xan: Exactly. Any 'identity' would be a differentiation from something else, this and not that. Beingness has no such differentiation. To know oneself as beingness yields freedom from identities. >Beingness may express itself in forms that do not lose awareness. Dan: Like Obi Wan in Star Wars? Did you notice how he was flickering? Forms have to flicker because they're objects of perception. A form of awareness emerges from the ground of no-form. The awareness isn't in the form apart from the ground. The form is changing instant to instant. xan: It's a great mystery how forms appear to exist at all. They seem to exist in the rapid-fire duality/binary system of on-off, flickering too fast for the slow pace of the speed of light the eye can perceive. The movie made a slowed down 'reel' version to point to the 'real' one. Awareness is the 'seamless dress' of awake consciousness. It is that which is eternal. Awareness 'of' forms makes it seem that awareness moves, but is only flickers on the screen of perception. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.