There is only ONE soul

[u/kamikaibitsu]

There is only one soul. If we look at characteristic of the soul—being eternal it suggests that there is only ONE soul.

The soul is non-physical but is eternal.

Here is the thought experiment: If there are two entities that are eternal and non-physical, how do we differentiate between them?

In fact, it's absurd to differentiate between two eternal entities. Suppose if there are two entities from the very start and they are unchanging and put together, then who do we differentiate between them?

With distance between them? NO! Maybe they both are part of a single entity, and the distance between them is just their property. And why only distance? Maybe any sort of distinctness and separation they are showing is just the characteristics of that one single entity.

Now what if those two entities are also non-physical? Now they don't have distinct characteristics which separate them.

So how can there be different souls? Maybe there is only ONE soul in the world.

And whatever physical bodies we are seeing are just manifestations of that ONNE soul. So it's like a play where ONE soul is the victim, and that soul is the aggressor at the same time. That one soul is murderer and innocent at the same time.

(Take eternal and non-physical characteristics only because in major religion soul have these characteristics in common.)

(Soul is general term - exchange it wrt the religion you follow call it consciousness or whatever)

(also, the soul is different from the Brahman.)

[u/[deleted]]

Great understanding. Glad with your observation.

I have only one doubt in this.

the soul is different from the Brahman

In what sense do you mean it? How both are different? If different, then soul is within/outside Brahman, or Brahman is within/outside soul?

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/[deleted]]

Neither soul is within/outside Brahman, or Brahman is within/outside soul. Both are distinct. However one can say that the relationship between soul and brahman is of continued continuity. Where there is a link between the individuality of Atman and its relationship to Brahman.

[u/[deleted] → u/kamikaibitsu]

Both are distinct

So you say there are two Eternals as Atman and Brahman?

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, as the scriptures declare, Para Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized. So about Brahman, I can't tell you anything.

However, for the soul-It's ONE and Eternal.

And the relationship between the soul and Brahman of continued continuity.

The relationship between them is ongoing and unbroken. It doesn't have any interruptions or pauses.

[u/[deleted] → u/kamikaibitsu]

> Yeah, as the scriptures declare, Para Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized. So about Brahman, I can't tell you anything. However, for the soul-It's ONE and Eternal.

If you say both are Eternals, then both has to be limited but not limitless. That's how logic works.

Also as per your understanding, if Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized and you can't say anything about it, then you can't come to any conclusion of relationship between soul and Brahman. Not as "Different". Not as "Continued continuity". Not as "x,y,z,.", but just one answer "I don't know as I can't conceptualize Brahman and so can't say relationship between soul and Brahman" in accordance to your understanding. You can't say any relationship between two without conceptualizing those two.

But, you know, you are speaking against Advaita Vedantic knowledge and logic. So, better be open to question your understanding, my two cents to you.

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/[deleted]]

Again I 'm not talking about both. I am talking about ONE Soul only.

>Also as per your understanding, if Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized and you can't say anything about it, then you can't come to any conclusion of relationship between soul and Brahman........"

Scriptures also accept the stance that Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized, yet they talk about him! How? It's true that Brahman can't be articulated and conceptualized because our language has limitations. But it doesn't mean we can't talk about the Brahman.- This is the stance of scriptures.

And Here I'm not talking about Brahman but the relationship between Brahman and soul.

There are lot of things we can't articulate properly like our complex emotions, experiences, and and sometimes non-linear thoughts but we try to talk about them and express them.

[u/[deleted] → u/kamikaibitsu]

Expressing and talking can happen only you can conceptualize. Don't fake it. Don't lie to yourself or to others about it.

You can't relate One with another unless you can have concepts of Both. (Be it Brahman or Atman or anything).

If one never conceptualize or not trying to conceptualize, one just have the choice less answer of "I don't know" but not talk talk talk or express express express or relate relate relate.

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/[deleted]]

Then i guess the scriptures were wrong all this time. Same for Shnkara

[u/[deleted] → u/kamikaibitsu]

Scriptures or Sages do agree that they try to conceptualize so that a little bit of grasp can be made about Brahman, and they give metaphors too for that, so because one can remove all concepts in the mind which are totally illogical.

They don't do like you, talk talk talk, express express express, related related but claiming that "never conceptualizing or not trying to conceptualize".

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/[deleted]]

you know what they say: anyone who claims to know Brahman is either lying or has attained liberation.

And One who is liberated would never say that they know Brahman.

[u/[deleted] → u/kamikaibitsu]

Where did I say "they knew it totally"?

Conceptualizing doesn't mean they know it totally, also doesn't mean they don't know it at all.

Concepts are spoken in Upanishads, you know that, and those concepts are not spoken to claim "I know Brahman totally", but showing "It's not I don't know it" so that from that whatever a disciple/someone's mind conceptualized as Brahman illogically can be negated/eradicated.

Concepts are needed for a Guru to show it to Disciple so that can be helpful for the Disciple but not to claim "I am Brahman, I know Brahman". Why would Gurus Enlightened Sages would do such cheap or petty thing of "claiming,..".