Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
The question is idiotic, because it presupposes a total abstraction and reduction of what a human life is, and then sets up "relations" between the self and the body that do not exist in nature.

Actually, the topic is so deep that to dismiss it in a few sentences doesn't give it justice. Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.

343 posted on 06/30/2003 8:42:27 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies ]


To: pram; unspun
Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.

Are you suggesting that this establishes "property rights" in one's body? Soul or atma cannot begin to express itself in the space-time plane without the organic body to which it is inseparably joined in physical reality. The bodily manifestation is simply part of the same energy continuum that is the self. I mean, it's not like a shoe or a suit that one puts on, or takes off at will.

354 posted on 06/30/2003 9:22:10 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson