Katha Upanishad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katha_Upanishad

I frame my question as Naciketas did to Yama
because I long to find my soul and do not trust
traditional Quaker or Christian theology to define
what is meant by soul or offer convincing
assurance of the afterlife.

Doubtless, soul is the higher self but is it
immortal? I daresay SRQers have differing
opinions. Don't hesitate to share them.

Please indulge me for 3 more questions -

do you accept that enlightenment may be
attained even if you are (Quaker) Christian?

is moral understanding and achievement needed
in order to attain enlightenment?

is Jesus Christ your Savior?

David Christainsen

David yahoo.com> wrote in news:2d6221f0-15a0-4984-850a-
9208c6b49e94@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com:

Why do you think you have one? Really. I think most people
think they have one, because they want one. The soul, from
what I've read is a Platonic notion that was carried over into
Christianity.

Doubtless? Very intelligent and sane people doubt this. And
if it doesn't exist, then questions about immortality are
like asking if unicorns are immortal.

On Jun 10, 10:12 pm, jeb erehwon.net> wrote:

David yahoo.com> wrote in
news:99074eb2-0c3b-4a42-a593-635302cb484a@r66g2000hsg.googlegr
oups.com:

And so too, were my answers.

On 6/10/08 1:08 PM, in article
2d6221f0-15a0-4984-850a-9208c6b49e94@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "David"
yahoo.com> wrote:

Timothy Travis wrote:

That's the problem. What you *like* is to hurt people who disagree
with you. You embrace those spirits who lead you to be self-righteous
and cruel, and fight those spirits that lead you towards tolerance or
empathy. And you tell yourself lies, saying that this is acceptable
behavior.

Engineer wrote:



I thought you had written that you would not see any post that did not have
'[SRQ]' in the title. Oh yes, here it is:

~~~
Subject: Re: [SRQ] The Three Trillion Dollar War
From: Engineer example.com>
Organization: <>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 14:26:53 +0000
Message-ID: U5udnXs6Da2wn7rVRVn_vwA@giganews.com

If it doesn't have [SRQ] in the title, I don't see it.
~~~

But clearly you saw Timothy Travis' post, which most definately *didn't*
have [SRQ] in the subject line.

I am confused

Yowie
(note that I added in the [SRQ] just to make sure you saw this)

Timothy Travis wrote:

On Jun 11, 3:43 pm, Timothy Travis comcast.net> wrote:

OTOH meditation on death is the start of philosophy,
according to Plato.

I submit the basic terms need to be defined before
conversation can go anywhere - soul, afterlife, salvation,
community (circle) of love, fullness of life, guidance, spirit,
personal transformation etc.

Like many of us, I don't pray nearly as often as I should.
Many of my prayers are spoken not in words, but in the
way that I touch someone I love, in the manner with
which I greet my morning, in the silence I keep when
my heart requires healing. But sometimes we need the
words to pray.

David Christainsen

Yowie wrote:

Usenet filters are, by necessity, fluid and changable in
the face of changing situations. At the moment, a simple
killfile of Hendry Leon, John G, David, and anything
crossposted to soc.history.ancient gets rid of just about
all of the garbage, while using [SRQ] has not caught on with
the posters of non-garbage.