spooky2
|
I think the problem is the dichotomy which is made between the body and the soul, and the main thing in it is the noncritical use of the term "soul". One aspect of "soul" I've seen in some posts here is that is it something like a life-spending thing. This then would be a mediator between some more refined-matter soul and the physical body. And then we have a lot of bodies of different densities, but what is the soul then? Another aspect of the term "soul" is that of an eternal, unchangeable something. This might be to some degree true, but we can't use it then for saying a soul would incarnate in a body which is within time, cause and effect, karma and such things. Therefore, we should find a more integrated language, which would mirror more thoroughly what is really experienced rather than carrying old outworn habits of talking and thinking. More "awareness", less "soul" I'd say in short. The more a personal soul is propagated, the less the concept of free will is logical, which is an inherent part of the worldview of those who think in terms of here-a-soul, there-a-body, soul-gives-command, body-moves, as far as I can see.
So, simply discussing soul and body without knowing and or defining what the heck that means is not very beneficial I think.
Spooky
|