Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Body and Soul + knowledge quest.
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.071156.20009@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 24 Oct 90 07:11:56 GMT
References: <1990Oct20.180354.14244@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 63
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1990Oct20.180354.14244@nas.nasa.gov>,
adobe!!asanders@decwrl.dec.com writes:
|>
|> | The general consensus is that the soul (or your own interpretation of
"soul")
|> | enters the "body" at conception, and further that the soul is in some way
|> | the prerequisite for conception...
|>                                      -Hugh Garsden
|>
|> This is an interesting line of inquiry, but I can't help thinking that
|> one of the most basic teaching of Eastern religion is that we live in a
|> state of Ignorance--that we do not know the truth about our existence and
|> cannot know this Truth until WE OURSELVES change. Thus Practice rather
|> than Study becomes the basis for the search for Truth.
|>
|> >From this point of view, whatever "general consensus" we reach about any
|> difficult question is bound to be flawed, because the instrument of inquiry
|> is flawed. Clearly, the road to self-perfection is far more trecherous than
|> the road to intellectual knowledge. But the rewards must be correspondingly
|> greater as well.

In general I agree with this, but with some comments about 
knowledge over Practice -

1. The simple fact that there are references in religious
texts to answer my question indicates that knowledge is certainly a part
(although not the most important part) of religious doctrines.
Knowledge and Practice are both present.

2. All levels of consciousness have their own ways of knowing,
and their own kind of knowledge. For example, empirical science
does very well at examining the material world. Each level encloses
and integrates the knowledge of all lower levels. But there is nothing
"wrong" with the knowledge that belongs to a certain level. Ultimately
what we must do is achieve Unity with the Absolute (the Truth
you speak of), but to do that we must get there by passing up through
the levels below it. If I want to climb to the top of a ladder, I must
pass all the rungs from the bottom to the top, I can't miraculously
end up at the top without actually making the climb. Considering
the rungs of consciousness, as I move from each rung to the next
I acquire the knowledge, power and truth that belongs to each level,
and integrate them into "me"; and there is nothing wrong with the
fact that I am doing this.

3. Consider the state of humanity when it moved from the pre-rational level
to the rational (if indeed we have done that). As far as that humanity was 
concerned, rational/intellectual enquiry and development _was_ their Practice. 
Exercising and developing their minds is what they should have been doing, and 
was appropriate Practice for that level.

With regard to point 2. perhaps it is possible to make jumps which
skip certain levels. However, it may be that in doing so the result is
not as good as passing through the levels, i.e. there is "something
missing" which will still need to found. Any comments on this? Is it
possible for someone to suddenly make a "jump" to enlightenment? And I
mean a big jump. What is the result? Is it the same as reaching enlightenment 
via a gradual development with no jumps?

--------
Hugh Garsden
University of Adelaide
hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au