Thanks to you, YmirGF & Doppelgänger
Often soul, (or Atman if taken to mean soul) can imply a God or creator and I wonder if your reject that 'God', at least in the Abrahamic sense of God a separate Creator from His soul(s).
The explanation of an Atman changes slightly if we take a Pan[en]theist or Buddhist perspective, doesn't it.
I do see the primary role of the entity or personality energy essence as being that of a creator. I do not see this as "god" and am quite dismissive of the concept of "god", as given,
in the vast majority of cases. That said, I do see the entity as being the origin of the various god concepts, in that those concepts arose from latent memories within the psyche of the human animal of its own nature. Then of course, to be fair, the idea of co-creators comes into play... and that is where the real fun begins...
doppelgänger;2347787 said:
I use a concept of the "soul" or "Atman" that means something in the context of my own inner experience and introspection. How they might be used by someone else, may or may not work for me. If it doesn't then I guess you could say I "reject the concept," but you can just as easily say that
you (or someone else) are rejecting the concept as I understand it to have meaning.
This expressed pretty well my own reasons for abandoning usage of the term. My thinking is that there is little point using a term with long standing "fixed" meanings. Doing so internally, there is no problem, of course, things just get a bit dicey when expressing the ideas externally. By default, usage of a given term will automatically make people conclude that you are including the baggage the terms carries around with it. The only way around this is to have a disclaimer at the onset, which seriously limits the point of using the term. I guess this is part of the reason why I am always looking for new ways to express symbols rather than relying on the old ways. Oh well, I did always like a good challenge.
