From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: No Soul
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:43:19 GMT
Organization: ----

Hi,

	vvs3564@tamsun.tamu.edu (vishwas) writes (sorry for the rudeness but
I don't want to guess the sex wrong again and get bashed for it ;-) ...

>	The important point in the Soul theory is " You can't know the Soul ".

	Then how can you conclude that the soul exist ? You must have KNOWN
that, right ?

>And the reason is knower can't be known. The logic behind it is if for 
>knowledge of any thing two basic requirements are 1) A knower and ...

	Indeed, in fact many (Western) philosophers have concluded that there 
is no such thing as a "knower". Yogacara philosophy may be interpreted as 
saying, "there is no such thing as a knower, just knowledge (mind)".

>	Other important points are 
>
>1) Cycle of birth-rebirth can't be explained logically if we propose No Soul
>theory.

	I think the Buddhist theory offers a soul-less explanation. Furthermore,
a) birth-rebirth is still an unproven thing, b) even if it is true, why should
there be a "logical" explanation and c) even if there is one, I still don't see
how the soul theory is the only one.

>2) If everything is changing in this world (which is certainly the buddhist
>viewpoint) then this change should be with respect to something which is 
>constant. There are lot of examples given to explain this point in the 
>scripture

	This is INCORRECT ! Change is a relative thing, yes. But it need not
be relative to a fixed constant ! In Math, this is equivalent (I think) to the
idea of partial derivative - change with respect to another change. The Earth
is moving (changing) about the Sun which is also moving (changing) about the
center of the Milky Way which is also moving ... And there is no physical
reason to stop. To detect change, you need RELATIVE constants but ABSOLUTE
constants are not necessary.

>	Another important point is Soul can not be known by mind only. One has 
>to go beyond the mind to say for sure whether there is a Soul or not. 

	This is where you and I differ. Your statement implies that besides
the mind, there is something else that "knows". This is not acceptable to me.
But I guess its a matter of axioms ;-)

> [analogy of dreaming deleted.]

	The analogy does not hold water because the brain remains active
even in sleep and therefore there is no need to postulate another mechanism
other than the functioning brain (although admittedly, we still know very
little about it). As for rebirth experiences, they are many who will dispute 
the so-called "evidences".

>	Soul is changeless, immortal entity which is the knower of all the 
>conditions and situations through which one is going. The mind and the body
>are the mere instruments of this entity. According to Samkhya philosophy
>which is dualistic in nature, Soul never takes part in any action that is 
>performed by the body-mind combination. 

	Gotcha !!! It is NOT possible to know WITHOUT change ! I presume
that you mean that the soul knows things as it happens and that you are not
talking about predestination (if everything is predestined, why do anything ?).
If so, then the soul in knowing X (say) would have gone from a state when X
is not known to a state where X is known, i.e. it CHANGED ! The Samkhya
philosophy is inconsistent because knowing about anything is a PARTICIPATION
(albeit passively) in an interaction with the body-mind. If there is completely
no link between the two then there is completely no way (by definition) that
the soul detects the actions of the other. The latter must have register
something with the soul so that it can distinguish the action. This means
that the soul must have gone from "not registered" to "registered".

	Looking forward to your reply.

Regards,

W.F. Wong.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern