Yup, thought of both those things. Well technically a soul isn't supposed to become a part of the whole without having attained moksha so the question of not retaining its unique memories doesn't arise. It just flits from body to body until it finds a human body and attains release from this cycle of rebirth. However, how and when exactly did this individual unit breakaway from the infinite is not something I know. Did it happen when the first acellular organism evolved on Earth or some other world where life exists? These are questions without answers and precisely the point at which theistic logic begins to fall apart. As far as souls taking non-human forms goes well that opens up some more unanswerable questions. We could say that since the dawn of life on this planet there have been a much much larger number of non-human life forms than the total number of humans that ever lived. If each of these life forms had souls then did they wait for 4 something billion years for humans to evolve so that they could attain moksha? Who decided that only a human can attain moksha? To me, the concept of all life forms having souls and then dying to become a part of the larger whole seems just another brilliant metaphor designed by our enlightened ancestors to convey the fact that all life is composed of the same basic building blocks and we die to become the foundation of life that comes after us. In that sense we live on, eternally.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion Gauri. Yes, it opens up several unanswered questions, and I was honestly hoping someone would step up with their thoughts - so thanks again. This goes to an even circular argument, if it flits from body to body, there'd have to be an even greater fundamental sense of a memory - shared between life-forms instead and not just between humans as we'd been assuming so far. It doesn't explain why some people would remember something from a past birth and not others - because most humans would have gone through different animal forms to achieve the human form. And it hints at the idea that everything is aiming to achieve the human-soul ideal - that is kinda like saying if we were all elephants, we'd be thinking "only elephant-souls can achieve moksha..." and why not? And what determines what is moral-immoral for a bacterium that infects a human, or a cat in order for them to attain a higher-life-form. The idea that only humans attain moksha through whatever means - karma, gnyan, yog etc, and not others, is very human centric. It does begin to fall apart, and I'm not sure if it is because I haven't learnt or thought about it enough, or if it is just not the truth. That makes a lot more sense to me too. There doesn't necessarily have to be the whole soul/spirit/morality-sin-heaven-hell thing to the explain existence of life.
Yes, if we were to concede that animals too have memories then what you say does pose an interesting question. I don't remember where exactly but I think I have read some mythological tales which talk about people having a recollection of their past animal births. But even these are restricted to the well know larger mammals like elephants, lions etc., that already play an important role in Hinduism. You bring up a very interesting point about all religious beliefs being human-centric, so much so that we haven't even been able to imagine a God that is not in our own likeness. Heck even the Scientologists' Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy looks human and they actually had a plethora of alien images to choose from. The morality question deserves its own thread. It is easily the most debated point between believers and non-believers. Those who believe, think that a moral being is the same as a religious being and one cannot exist without the other. I personally subscribe to the point of view that morality is a human trait that evolved out of a necessity to survive. Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion provides an excellent discussion of this subject. The farther you delve into these questions the harder it becomes to suspend disbelief and cling to faith. One of the reasons I've all but given up on religion. I am yet to meet anyone who can provide answers to the questions I have without giving me the faith argument. If a truly benevolent and all-forgiving, all-loving God exists, then he/she/it should have no problem forgiving me my doubting nature as long as I live a moral life. If on the other hand, God is vindictive and vengeful, like say Zeus, then why should I pray to such a God? Hopefully some day I will meet a truly enlightened soul and find a reason to believe that life is not random. As of now I see no reason to believe otherwise.
As far as my extremely limited knowledge goes, I think the cycle of birth starts with a soul gradually progressing from basic life forms into the human form because the human form is considered superior to other life forms, and then goes through many rebirths on earth in the human form as punishment for bad deeds committed in each birth as human, ultimately attaining Moksha. Again, this is only hearsay and I am not claiming that I have read the scriptures or have scientific proof of this phenomenon for a soul!
Well that is good. But if you look at any theistic faith/belief system, the basic premise of that belief system is that there is an invisible entity up in the sky and everyone has to believe in him ( I use 'him' because none of these belief systems believe it could be a woman) to get to a special destination in after life and specifically, you have to believe in their flavour of this invisible entity and if you don't, you will be cast out into a inferior and wicked place. So as long as we both are in agreement on this basic premise of any given organized religion, let us go back to the original argument. You still think most faiths do not think that they are superior to another belief system? So if you argue that people who call the concept behind beliefs/faiths irrational and illogical as condescending, then I have to say the fundamental belief behind any given religion is equally, if not more condescending. You maybe an exception than a norm. Yes, in an ideal world what you say might be true. But in practice, atleast from my personal experience, whenever there are these respectful exchange of opinions and one side is pushed to the corner maybe because their arguments crumble in the face of logic and reason, the typical comeback line is 'Oh you are offending or insulting my beliefs'. Well Spidey the problem with getting in a argument with a believer is, you never know when they will claim they are being ridiculed or insulted. Almost everything a non believer says can be construed as insulting by a believer because it refutes the very basis of their belief system. And in most instances, the believer always goes up in arms and it is a very predictable response from my observation.
Malavika Sorry for butting in again into what's specifically been addressed at Spidey, but since I seem to have kicked up this controversy, I think I should explain. The only thing I was calling you out on was your comment about how even people with double-digit IQs know or something to that effect which I found quite rude. That was the only thing I was referring to and not your ideas or beliefs, though our belief systems on many things are polar opposites! And again, as I already explained earlier, I just read too much into that one sentence of yours when I should have just kept quite when it wasn't even being directed at me. So my sincere apologies if you felt I was attacking your beliefs or ideas because that wasn't my intention at all!
Peartree, no apologies needed. I was just going back and forth with Spiderman on a generic subject and it has nothing to do with you. And on the double digit IQ comment, if you go back and read it in context, it was a remark on internet stories of rebirth and people who actually believe them. I don't specifically know if you believe internet stories on rebirth but I am thinking not. Anyways, the remark was made with respect to gullibility of people who'd believe internet stories on rebirth and if that is rude, then so be it. It was not a remark on people who choose to believe in religion and I thought I'd point that out.
Just wanted say one thing, in Scientology people actually can go as deeper as to know that they were animals/insects,I heard. Every living being with a heart beat has birth, death and rebirth. Maybe the t-rex and triceratops too have had rebirth after they died. Just like how in 1550 people thought that flying from India to US was not possible and humans actually made it happen, likewise in another 50 years talking to the dead would like sending an email and maybe we will all start our day with a HI to our dead grandparents.
Oh noes! :rant I shudder to think abt Rel forum in IL then "I need your advice. My MIL is a devil who resides in Hell, and she sends daily email to my DH, and poisons his mind with the poisoned apple. I am losing my mind over this. Pls. advice, why cant MIL email other devils, rather than email DH (though he himself is a little devil)...I am very frustrated, I feel like spamming my MIL's inbox in hell. Pls. advice :drowning" :bonk
