souls

[John_Martin]

and here is the Continuation…
*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Your consciousness of understanding what you understand is simply your intellect moving your mind to view the conscious images and words giving explanation of what it understands.

Love4All: How can the intellect move anything? Misstatement - should have said “soul” or more specifically “will” instead of intellect. To my mind, the intellect is that which knows, i.e., has experiences. And the will is that which does, i.e., moves things. If there is thinking being intended and carried out, that is accomplished via the will moving the intellect to apprehend the contents of the mind, manipulate them, re-arrange conceptual units of thought into new structures, all in accord with the desires of the soul. Correctly said. Actually, though, to be specific also yourself, the desires are passions or “emotions” of the will, which is a power of the soul. If being very specific, it is habits made use of at will (upon the will’s desire) that do the actual moving,

*Originally Posted by John Martin *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It is the same with Reason and Will; any words you use to express a choice of means to an end, to express volition, are not your actual will, but these conscious words of choice are movements from your soul, from your will. The will is moving your conscious thoughts and your mouth to be a “mirror image” of what your reason and will have chosen and desire. The actual choosing and willing are not perceptible by you, they are in your immaterial soul. Your conscious thoughts and your words are the effect of that immaterial happening.

John Martin

Love4All: So, are you saying thought is material, or are you rather saying that it is not necessarily material but phenomenal? Are you saying that we do not move our bodies and minds with our wills, nor perceive our situation in our intellects, but rather that there is some lower reflection of these powers that actually carries out the moving and the perceiving, and that this lower level is somehow connected to the “higher,” i.e. the soul itself? And if so, by what? What would you call the connecting link? Or are you espousing Occasionalism? And if you are positing multiple levels of being, why? Why do we need such a complex scheme?
Yes, conscious thought is a movement by the immaterial intellect via the will, with its “passions” or “emotions” and their habits.
Complex? well, I find it works. I am actually espousing St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) and, to a great degree, Aristotle. And it is remarkable that every bit of it matches what is happening in life; it works, and it is absolutely delightful seeing and experiencing it working. I actually do not find it complex, nor is it multi-level of being. There is one being composed of body and soul, each fulfilling its order.

Love4All: Or, have I misunderstood you? I believe you have embraced Buddhism and wish that all philosophy could somehow be subsets of it. But Catholicism does not do this. It is all about the self, the I, being fulfilled by union with the other (God and my neighbor) in the Kingdom of God (the Church here and in Heaven)

John Martin

 

[Love4All]

I believe you have embraced Buddhism and wish that all philosophy could somehow be subsets of it. But Catholicism does not do this. It is all about the self, the I, being fulfilled by union with the other (God and my neighbor) in the Kingdom of God (the Church here and in Heaven)

John Martin

You have no basis for such a belief. I am Roman Catholic. The thread’s OP mentioned Buddhism, and I am familiar with that to which the Buddha was awake.

 

[John_Martin]

You have no basis for such a belief. I am Roman Catholic. The thread’s OP mentioned Buddhism, and I am familiar with that to which the Buddha was awake.

I believe I do have a basis for such a belief, when in an earlier post you likened or equated Intellect with the Buddhist idea of consciousness and the will with (conscious) volition, and positing understanding as perception (in the sense of “apprehension”, I would think).
But, if you are only looking at apparent parallels, that is fine; no complaints. But as to whether Buddha found the answer, he did not.

John Martin

 

[504Katrin]

As far as animal souls or spirits are concerned, both of my parents as well as my niece have heard their deceased dogs right after they died. Both of my parents heard their little schnauzer, “Jinx” clearly bark right next to their bed around 11pm the night Jinx died. Several years earlier, my niece heard her boxer walking across the wood floor, toenails going clickety-clack, and then the sound stopped, and then she heard the sound of dog tags clinking, as if the dog had shaken itself. This was the same day the dog had died. Both these incidents occurred in the same house.

Interesting to speculate on what was going on in that house. My mother and my niece also felt invisible hands touching them. For my niece, it was a gentle touch on the shoulder, but my mother was shoved from behind. Both incidents occurred in the kitchen in the same house.

This is quite creepy.
From time to time, every couple of month, it strikes me like a lightning, I don’t think of anything and all of a sudden my bunnys’ scent is in the air, and it’s intense and around me when that happens. These aren’t moments when I would think of her or anything, but actually situations when I’m in a hurry in the streets. Also happened in winter times when there’re no flowers or anything around. I once woke up from sleep! because I could smell her. That was tough. I cried my eyes out.

 

[Love4All]

I believe I do have a basis for such a belief, when in an earlier post you likened or equated Intellect with the Buddhist idea of consciousness and the will with (conscious) volition, and positing understanding as perception (in the sense of “apprehension”, I would think).
But, if you are only looking at apparent parallels, that is fine; no complaints. But as to whether Buddha found the answer, he did not.

John Martin

What was the question?

 

[John_Martin]

What was the question?

He did not find Nirvana, his sought after answer to be free of ego; he was not “awake”.

• “The soul without attachment to ego is situated in Nirvana, no longer resisting the flow of life with egoic attachments.”

The whole point of the soul, Intellect and Will, is union of the self, the “I”, with Other.
The Intellect knowing myself and the ultimate truth united, my Will satisfied (joyful) in the actual union, my body via senses / perception (the physical appetites) happy with the sight and touch of the Other.
God himself is delighted with himself, knowing himself, and we are the result of his love, created to enjoy him and his goodness and beauty. It is not egocentrism, it is "two lovers, each knowing that ‘you are the best for me, and I am the best for you’. It is the union of love fully reciprocated. It is knowing and knowing that I know and knowing that I am known and knowing that the knower knows that I know he knows me. Full ego and full other. Heaven is intimately personal love and being loved. There is only attachment there, no detachment.

And there is room for animals with the God who has “cattle on a thousand hills”, we will delight in union with him and with each other, and with all he has made.

John Martin

 

[Love4All]

He did not find Nirvana, his sought after answer to be free of ego; he was not “awake”.

How do you know this?

• “The soul without attachment to ego is situated in Nirvana, no longer resisting the flow of life with egoic attachments.”

The whole point of the soul, Intellect and Will, is union of the self, the “I”, with Other.
The Intellect knowing myself and the ultimate truth united, my Will satisfied (joyful) in the actual union, my body via senses / perception (the physical appetites) happy with the sight and touch of the Other.
God himself is delighted with himself, knowing himself, and we are the result of his love, created to enjoy him and his goodness and beauty. It is not egocentrism, it is "two lovers, each knowing that ‘you are the best for me, and I am the best for you’. It is the union of love fully reciprocated. It is knowing and knowing that I know and knowing that I am known and knowing that the knower knows that I know he knows me. Full ego and full other. Heaven is intimately personal love and being loved. There is only attachment there, no detachment.

And there is room for animals with the God who has “cattle on a thousand hills”, we will delight in union with him and with each other, and with all he has made.

John Martin

And in this life? It sounds like you are talking about Heaven. What about here and now?

 

[John_Martin]

How do you know this?

And in this life? It sounds like you are talking about Heaven. What about here and now?

How do I know this?
Revelation; are you Catholic? then you know there is no Nirvana as described in Buddhism, and the understanding of the self, of human “being” is insufficient to describe what really is and what really happens. They labor to make their being match the theory. But being cannot become what is unnatural to its form.

And in this life,
yes, we enjoy animals here also, and we enjoy union with our God and our neighbor here as well (in Christ, in citizenship in his Kingdom, and in hope - the conviction of things not seen, “hope” is the state of satisfaction in the will, that what is desired will actually come to pass).

John Martin

 

[Love4All]

How do I know this?
Revelation; are you Catholic? then you know there is no Nirvana as described in Buddhism,

Please be patient with me here. What is your conception of “Nirvana as described in Buddhism?”

I believe I experience it, and thus it is inconsistent with my experience to assert there is no such state. So it seems to me you may have a different conception than mine.

and the understanding of the self, of human “being” is insufficient to describe what really is and what really happens. They labor to make their being match the theory. But being cannot become what is unnatural to its form.

God’s original intent for a human being was no sin. The word, “natural” carries two distinct and disparate connotations. For clarity’s sake, consider the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall and after the Fall. Before and after, their state was natural to them. But after the Fall, they had lost grace and stood in need of it, whereas before, they were in the state of grace and lacked nothing.

The pre-Fall state is “natural” to a human being, even though we are not born into that exalted state. Therefore Nirvana, as I conceive it, is natural to us. It is sin, or being caught up in craving and clinging, that is unnatural, or rather ungraced nature.

Now we have concupiscence, which prevents us from living in the innocence that Adam and Eve had before their first sin. But if we work on ourselves, discipline ourselves, put forth what the Buddha called Right Effort, or what the Catholic Church calls Work, we can largely overcome clinging and craving. We need not be unhappy with our situation. We can instead, accept everything as coming from the hand of the Father.

And in this life,
yes, we enjoy animals here also, and we enjoy union with our God and our neighbor here as well (in Christ, in citizenship in his Kingdom, and in hope - the conviction of things not seen, “hope” is the state of satisfaction in the will, that what is desired will actually come to pass).

John Martin

 

[John_Martin]

Please be patient with me here. What is your conception of “Nirvana as described in Buddhism?”

I believe I experience it, and thus it is inconsistent with my experience to assert there is no such state. So it seems to me you may have a different conception than mine.

God’s original intent for a human being was no sin. The word, “natural” carries two distinct and disparate connotations. For clarity’s sake, consider the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall and after the Fall. Before and after, their state was natural to them. But after the Fall, they had lost grace and stood in need of it, whereas before, they were in the state of grace and lacked nothing.

The pre-Fall state is “natural” to a human being, even though we are not born into that exalted state. Therefore Nirvana, as I conceive it, is natural to us. It is sin, or being caught up in craving and clinging, that is unnatural, or rather ungraced nature.

Now we have concupiscence, which prevents us from living in the innocence that Adam and Eve had before their first sin. But if we work on ourselves, discipline ourselves, put forth what the Buddha called Right Effort, or what the Catholic Church calls Work, we can largely overcome clinging and craving. We need not be unhappy with our situation. We can instead, accept everything as coming from the hand of the Father.

Craving and clinging and concupiscence are not sin; craving and clinging are alternate terms for love and desire, which are “passions” or emotions of the appetite known as concupiscence. That appetite existed before and after the fall.
The “graced nature” cannot be regained by right effort or work. Grace is bestowed as a gift, full and complete, ready for use. There is no need to try to work back to a graced state (which would not work anyway).
But, being baptized, we have been given grace, with the Virtues, whereby we work. By this, I mean, when the appetite says “hungry” and apprehends visions of eating all sorts of things, then reason knows my body with its appetites is the servant of my soul, and I choose to feed it what I reason it needs, rather than the appetite’s suggestion. My body does not “know God” or want him. But my soul does, and with the virtues given (which are habits to be used at will), my soul chooses the activities the body will do, not do, enjoy, not enjoy. Some of my sensitive appetites will be disappointed, others grudgingly satisfied, others fully satisfied, but not because they got their way. Rather, they were provided for by choice, rather than by inclination.

As I see it, in spite of the claim of the letting go of self, or ego, Nirvana is a very selfish idea, self satisfaction in the face of saying one lets go of self.
Whereas Christianity is fully about self-beatification in the loving and keeping of the self with full union to the source of our being and all that he has created, and thus is fully unselfish.

This was rushed - I am at lunch time.

John Martin

 

[billcu1]

How do I know this?
Revelation; are you Catholic? then you know there is no Nirvana as described in Buddhism, and the understanding of the self, of human “being” is insufficient to describe what really is and what really happens. They labor to make their being match the theory. But being cannot become what is unnatural to its form.

And in this life,
yes, we enjoy animals here also, and we enjoy union with our God and our neighbor here as well (in Christ, in citizenship in his Kingdom, and in hope - the conviction of things not seen, “hope” is the state of satisfaction in the will, that what is desired will actually come to pass).

John Martin

What do you mean no Nirvanna? Nirvanna is just peace. Freedom from suffering. Teresa of Avila sought this and I believe said put your cares on the cross which works. How do you know what the buddha acheived. I have been into buddhism for longer than Roman Catholicism and I find the doctrines quite compatible. Though these 2 men taught different things on the outside, they acheived the same goal inwardly. Jesus was the messiah for Israel then turned to the gentiles. The buddha only taught freedom from suffering. Have you ever heard of the bodhi tree? That’s where the buddha acheived peace.

 

[John_Martin]

What do you mean no Nirvanna? Nirvanna is just peace. Freedom from suffering. Teresa of Avila sought this and I believe said put your cares on the cross which works. How do you know what the buddha acheived. I have been into buddhism for longer than Roman Catholicism and I find the doctrines quite compatible. Though these 2 men taught different things on the outside, they acheived the same goal inwardly. Jesus was the messiah for Israel then turned to the gentiles. The buddha only taught freedom from suffering. Have you ever heard of the bodhi tree? That’s where the buddha acheived peace.

You sure you mean all that?
“I give you peace, not as the world gives” said Jesus, but Nirvana is a proposition by a man (of the world) of what is peace, and therefore not true peace.

Peace as being Freedom from suffering? Is that what you see as the Christian dream?
Why would St. Paul then write “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.”? and “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us”?
If Teresa said to put your cares on the cross, was she saying it was the way to be free of suffering? The Cross is the place of suffering. She was experiencing her suffering but joining it to Jesus’ suffering (as Catholics are wont to say, “Offer it up”) as a reality of your life in which you welcome the Lord to work for life in others.
Gautama taught a system. This is not what Jesus did. They are fully unalike. Jesus himself was the life. The disciples were at peace just by being with him, not because they practiced methods of work to attain peace. They had no inward goal, only the goal of their legs walking to keep pace with him so they could feel his hand on their shoulder or feel their hand on his shoulder. Union with him as his friend, his brother, his subject, his people. Full attachment of “me and thee”.

John Martin

 

[billcu1]

You sure you mean all that?
“I give you peace, not as the world gives” said Jesus, but Nirvana is a proposition by a man (of the world) of what is peace, and therefore not true peace.

Peace as being Freedom from suffering? Is that what you see as the Christian dream?
Why would St. Paul then write “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.”? and “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us”?
If Teresa said to put your cares on the cross, was she saying it was the way to be free of suffering? The Cross is the place of suffering. She was experiencing her suffering but joining it to Jesus’ suffering (as Catholics are wont to say, “Offer it up”) as a reality of your life in which you welcome the Lord to work for life in others.
Gautama taught a system. This is not what Jesus did. They are fully unalike. Jesus himself was the life. The disciples were at peace just by being with him, not because they practiced methods of work to attain peace. They had no inward goal, only the goal of their legs walking to keep pace with him so they could feel his hand on their shoulder or feel their hand on his shoulder. Union with him as his friend, his brother, his subject, his people. Full attachment of “me and thee”.

John Martin

Joining in meditation your suffering to the cross takes away suffering. This is a life of suffering and things are going to happen that would normally bring suffering but inwardly an “awakened” one would be a peace. To know Jesus’s system is to know he taught a system. Though as you say they were different and had different methods and goals. The buddha’s create a “pureland” to go to to continue working on acheiving peace. Jesus said “I go to prepare a place for you” to continue achieving peace. Peter represents the left hand of the body. John the right hand. Jesus taught them very different things. You simply know of Peter the shepard. Jesus said I “have sheep in other folds” Things must be spoon fed to the babes. Does any of this make sense? I’m kinda going off the topic of the thread.

 

[billcu1]

You sure you mean all that?
“I give you peace, not as the world gives” said Jesus, but Nirvana is a proposition by a man (of the world) of what is peace, and therefore not true peace.

Peace as being Freedom from suffering? Is that what you see as the Christian dream?
Why would St. Paul then write “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.”? and “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us”?
If Teresa said to put your cares on the cross, was she saying it was the way to be free of suffering? The Cross is the place of suffering. She was experiencing her suffering but joining it to Jesus’ suffering (as Catholics are wont to say, “Offer it up”) as a reality of your life in which you welcome the Lord to work for life in others.
Gautama taught a system. This is not what Jesus did. They are fully unalike. Jesus himself was the life. The disciples were at peace just by being with him, not because they practiced methods of work to attain peace. They had no inward goal, only the goal of their legs walking to keep pace with him so they could feel his hand on their shoulder or feel their hand on his shoulder. Union with him as his friend, his brother, his subject, his people. Full attachment of “me and thee”.

John Martin

What makes you think Nirvana is a proposition of man? Paul said when that which is not prefect becomes perfect… He’s talking about Nirvana. Theologica Germanica.

 

[Auntie_A]

What do you mean no Nirvanna? Nirvanna is just peace. Freedom from suffering. Teresa of Avila sought this and I believe said put your cares on the cross which works. How do you know what the buddha acheived. I have been into buddhism for longer than Roman Catholicism and I find the doctrines quite compatible. Though these 2 men taught different things on the outside, they acheived the same goal inwardly. Jesus was the messiah for Israel then turned to the gentiles. The buddha only taught freedom from suffering. Have you ever heard of the bodhi tree? That’s where the buddha acheived peace.

I disagree. The compatibility appears on the surface but is not similar at a deeper level and how it manifests in reality. The difference is that Buddha tuned out or closed his eyes to suffering; Jesus Christ took all the suffering inward with eyes wide open. There is a big difference between man, however enlightened, and God.

 

[John_Martin]

Joining in meditation your suffering to the cross takes away suffering. This is a life of suffering and things are going to happen that would normally bring suffering but inwardly an “awakened” one would be a peace. To know Jesus’s system is to know he taught a system. Though as you say they were different and had different methods and goals. The buddha’s create a “pureland” to go to to continue working on acheiving peace. Jesus said “I go to prepare a place for you” to continue achieving peace. Peter represents the left hand of the body. John the right hand. Jesus taught them very different things. You simply know of Peter the shepard. Jesus said I “have sheep in other folds” Things must be spoon fed to the babes. Does any of this make sense? I’m kinda going off the topic of the thread.

In all seriousness, someone has deceived you with this. Please print the posts here and take them to your Priest. He will either tell you I am confused, or he will help you see where you have been led astray. But he is a Priest, an authoritative representative of Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit, and sworn to tell you only what is true and not lead you astray.

John Martin

 

[billcu1]

I disagree. The compatibility appears on the surface but is not similar at a deeper level and how it manifests in reality. The difference is that Buddha tuned out or closed his eyes to suffering; Jesus Christ took all the suffering inward with eyes wide open. There is a big difference between man, however enlightened, and God.

I don’t know that he closed his eyes to suffering. In buddhism too accepting suffering and facing it too is a technique. As Teresa of Avila’s teachings go. The thing that is taught is that all suffering is self induced. By confusion. God wants us in the end to be just like him. That’s his greatest dream. And that’s from the Church also.

 

[billcu1]

I disagree. The compatibility appears on the surface but is not similar at a deeper level and how it manifests in reality. The difference is that Buddha tuned out or closed his eyes to suffering; Jesus Christ took all the suffering inward with eyes wide open. There is a big difference between man, however enlightened, and God.

We can’t close our eyes to suffering anyway. We’re not quite there yet. A buddha could and as I say he taught all suffering is self induced but the ordinary person needs to begin by embracing suffering as Jesus taught. A bhodhissatva like he probably was could do what we couldn’t. He was talking to the babes. In buddhist that’s the difference in Hinyanna and Vajrayanna. We need salvation. We are lost.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

When we ask about animals’ souls, I think most of us are thinking of our dogs and cats, or other pets which were part of our family.

If I cast my mind around some other members of the animal kingdom, I’m not sure I’d want a Tyrannosaurus Rex romping around the playground in the beatific vision, or a Great White Shark suddenly surfacing in the stream flowing out of the heavenly city, just as I’m about to launch myself off the flying fox tied to the tree of life.

I like to think they have eternal souls, but I’ll just have to leave it to the day I die before I found out, unless I get a private revelation beforehand, and even then I won’t be able to tell you because of the rules …

I certainly believe we’re held to account for how we treat our fellow creatures. It’s one thing to kill and eat them, but quite another to treat them cruelly.

Their souls go somewhere after they die. They don’t just disappear. They’re spiritual and as far as I know, spirit is indestructable.

 

[billcu1]

When we ask about animals’ souls, I think most of us are thinking of our dogs and cats, or other pets which were part of our family.

If I cast my mind around some other members of the animal kingdom, I’m not sure I’d want a Tyrannosaurus Rex romping around the playground in the beatific vision, or a Great White Shark suddenly surfacing in the stream flowing out of the heavenly city, just as I’m about to launch myself off the flying fox tied to the tree of life.

I like to think they have eternal souls, but I’ll just have to leave it to the day I die before I found out, unless I get a private revelation beforehand, and even then I won’t be able to tell you because of the rules …

I certainly believe we’re held to account for how we treat our fellow creatures. It’s one thing to kill and eat them, but quite another to treat them cruelly.

Their souls go somewhere after they die. They don’t just disappear. They’re spiritual and as far as I know, spirit is indestructable.

I believe as some others teach that there is a “group” soul. A guide or such. There is the spirtual archytypal man “Adam” The potter’s broken vessel.

CAT spirtual idea
|
|
/ | \

indiviual cat souls

for example.