Never Humdrum
It never ceases to amaze me how living a life in harmony with the Supreme keeps getting sweeter and sweeter and sweeter, on and on and on, ad infinitum. The ecstasy of Krishna bhakti never gets maxed out because there is always an unlimited capacity for the heart to grow and mature further and further into an ever-increasingly loving, intimate relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna. What this means is that the devotee's life is experienced at every second as the greatest, thrilling, vanguard adventure on the cutting edge of world history in the making. In this way a life of Krishna consciousness is never dull, drab, or humdrum.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
"Who Are You?" Lecture
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Please accept my obeisances.
Argument for the the existence of the soul
1) The cells in your body are constantly changing and so the body is in a state of constant flux. Yet, you remember experiences of being a child, boy, etc. You have a sense of changelessness in regards to your person.
Argument against this
1) Sure, the body is constantly changing, and so the mind element is constantly changing as well to keep up with this. Therefore, the brain cells that make up our minds are constantly replacing themselves, allowing us to experience a sense of changelessness. This is mother nature's way of allowing our consciousness to evolve. There is nothing mystical about it that leads us to conclude that a soul is responsible for our sense of being. It is simply a product of a chemical state that we are experiencing a semblance of changelessness. This is actually a necessary component of the evolution of consciousness in an intelligent life form. Otherwise, how could structure or intelligence be produced without a "ground of being" (if you will) from which to originate from. The evolution of intelligence requires a stable structure in which to evolve itself. This structure is guaranteed by mother nature's establishment. That which you regard as "changelessness" in a human being's personhood is actually a fundamental pre-requisite for the formation of intelligence.
How do you counter this argument?
Sincerely,
Sophia
But even if for the sake argument we assume that the brain is the mind, this argument still falls apart. Here's how:
Everyone has the common experience of a sense of changelessness in spite of so many changes of body and mind. This is clear first hand scientific data to prove the non-material nature of the self.
This argument you have presented tries to throw a monkey wrench in the gears of what is an easily perceived common sense observation. Science and philosophy is supposed make it easy to see the truth, not cloud it with confusion. Therefore the argument you have presented is neither philosophical nor scientific.
The argument admits the constantly changing nature of the mind and the body, and tells us that our sense of changelessness is an illusion created by a mind that changes itself to keep up with the changes of the body. This is a gigantic leap of faith we are expected to make here. An intelligent person avoid such leaps of blind faith.
Where is the proof that such perfectly synchronized changes of the mind to match the body could ever be precisely executed step by step at every minute? And even if they could be, where is the proof that they would create an illusion of changelessness? There is no common sense practical observation we can make to support such a contention.
The fact remains that in spite of so many changes of mind and body, we all can remember experiences we had decades ago. How could a changed body matched by a changed mind allow a person to relive within his mind experiences he had in the past? The only logical explanation is a non-material self which exists beyond time and space. Careful, clear logic points to the existence of a changeless self existing separately from the changing brain, mind, and body.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
"Who Are You?" Lecture
Riga, Latvia 19 May 2008
Answers According to the Vedic Version:
Question: How to Counter this Argument?
Hare Krishna.All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Please accept my obeisances.
Argument for the the existence of the soul
1) The cells in your body are constantly changing and so the body is in a state of constant flux. Yet, you remember experiences of being a child, boy, etc. You have a sense of changelessness in regards to your person.
Argument against this
1) Sure, the body is constantly changing, and so the mind element is constantly changing as well to keep up with this. Therefore, the brain cells that make up our minds are constantly replacing themselves, allowing us to experience a sense of changelessness. This is mother nature's way of allowing our consciousness to evolve. There is nothing mystical about it that leads us to conclude that a soul is responsible for our sense of being. It is simply a product of a chemical state that we are experiencing a semblance of changelessness. This is actually a necessary component of the evolution of consciousness in an intelligent life form. Otherwise, how could structure or intelligence be produced without a "ground of being" (if you will) from which to originate from. The evolution of intelligence requires a stable structure in which to evolve itself. This structure is guaranteed by mother nature's establishment. That which you regard as "changelessness" in a human being's personhood is actually a fundamental pre-requisite for the formation of intelligence.
How do you counter this argument?
Sincerely,
Sophia
Answer: With Simple, Clear Logic
The first flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the brain and mind are the same when in fact they are different. The mind is a subtle element which exists outside of the confines of the brain.But even if for the sake argument we assume that the brain is the mind, this argument still falls apart. Here's how:
Everyone has the common experience of a sense of changelessness in spite of so many changes of body and mind. This is clear first hand scientific data to prove the non-material nature of the self.
This argument you have presented tries to throw a monkey wrench in the gears of what is an easily perceived common sense observation. Science and philosophy is supposed make it easy to see the truth, not cloud it with confusion. Therefore the argument you have presented is neither philosophical nor scientific.
The argument admits the constantly changing nature of the mind and the body, and tells us that our sense of changelessness is an illusion created by a mind that changes itself to keep up with the changes of the body. This is a gigantic leap of faith we are expected to make here. An intelligent person avoid such leaps of blind faith.
Where is the proof that such perfectly synchronized changes of the mind to match the body could ever be precisely executed step by step at every minute? And even if they could be, where is the proof that they would create an illusion of changelessness? There is no common sense practical observation we can make to support such a contention.
The fact remains that in spite of so many changes of mind and body, we all can remember experiences we had decades ago. How could a changed body matched by a changed mind allow a person to relive within his mind experiences he had in the past? The only logical explanation is a non-material self which exists beyond time and space. Careful, clear logic points to the existence of a changeless self existing separately from the changing brain, mind, and body.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Comments
Post a Comment