[Paul Bunyan]

Lets discuss about WHAT WE UNDERSTAND in the process of this journey towards truth.

THIS THREAD IS BEYOND religion and kindly lets refrain from religius talks, UNLESS to quote relevant thigns froM ANY RELIGION.

[Peptobismol]

nantragna n bahishpragna nomyatragna n pragnandhanan n pragna napragnam |
adrushtam-vyavharyam-grahyam-lakshanyam-chintyam-vyapdeshyam-ekatmpratya-yasarn- praptrochopashamn shant-shivmdait chaturth manayante sa atma sa vigneya: || 7 ||

- Mandukya Upanishad.

So whats ur understanding!?

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness
na bahih prajnam = Not outward focussed consciousness
no'bhayatah- prajnam = Not a combination of the two
na prajnanaghanam = not the dark mass of consciousness or ignorance
na prajnam = not knowing
na-aprajnam = not not-knowing
adrishtam = unseen
avyavaharayam = indescribable
agrahyam = ungraspable or intangible
alakshanam = devoid of attributes
acintyam = unthinkable
avyapadesyam = indefinable
ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence
prapancopasarnam = the sublimation of Prapancha or the world
santam = peaceful
sivam = auspicous
advaitam = non-dual one
caturtham manyante = this fourth state
sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known

[TorryJens]

The Mandukya is a very significant Upanishad that reveals the truth about practical Advaita.

The Mandukya Karika written by Gaudapada the Mahaguru of Adi Sankara is considered to be a beautiful exposition and commentary on the essence of the Upanishad.

Seekers of the Truth in the Advaitic tradition always hold this Upanishad in the highest regard.

[Lt_Apple]

Badri, looks like u are well versed with sanskrit, and hence can stand to clarify any doubts if arising.
_________-

na (न) - No/Not
antah (अन्तः) - Inside/Inner/Internal
pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Knowable/Acquaintable/Knowing
bahis (बहिस्) - Outside/Outward/Outer/Excluded/External
ubhayatah (उभयतः) - On both side/In both cases
pragyaan (प्रज्ञान) - Cognisance/Knowing
ghanam/ghana (घनम्/घन) - Dense/Dark/Solid/Hard
apragyam (अप्रज्ञम्) - a (अ) + pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Non-knowable/Non-knowing - Unknowable
adrishhtam (अदृष्टम्) - a (अ) + drishhtam (दृष्टम्) - Non-seeable/Non-viewable - Invisible
avyavahaaryam (अव्यवहार्यम्) - a (अ) + vyavahaaryam (व्यवहार्यम्) - Non-actionable/Non-interact-able.
agraahyam (अग्राह्यम्) - a (अ) + graahyam (ग्राह्यम्) - Non-grasp-able/Non-comprehensible - Imperceptible/Incomprehensible
alakshanam (अलक्षणम्) - a (अ) + lakshanam (लक्षणम्) - Non-characteristic - Not having any characteristics.
achintyam (अचिन्त्यम्) - a (अ) + chintyam (चिन्त्यम्) - Non-reflection-able/Non-thinkable - Inconceivable
avyapadeshyam (अव्यपदेश्यम्) - a (अ) + vyapadeshyam (व्यपदेश्यम्) - Non-mentionable
ekaatma (एकात्म) - eka (एक) + aatma (आत्म) - Single self
pratyaya (प्रत्यय) - Conception/Conviction/Notion/Idea
saaram (सारम्) - Substance/Quintessence
pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness
shaantam (शान्तम्) - Peaceful
shivam (शिवम्) - Auspicious/Kind/Friendly/Gracious/Happy
advaitam (अद्वैतम्) - a (अ) + dvaitam (द्वैतम्) - Non-dual
chaturtham (चतुर्थम्) - Fourth
manyante (मन्यन्ते) - Deem/View as
sah (सः) - He
aatmaa (आत्मा) - Self/Soul/Spirit
vigyeyah (विज्ञेयः) - To be known


__

This is something I got from a website.

Shivam - explanation is given as auspicious(as said by u too), kind, gracious etc.

I have a doubt if Shiva also means STATIC?

Also,

pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness

states CESSATION of prapancha. Since prapancha is nothing but pancha bootha in its various proportions, its nothing but CESSATION of external world

cessation here DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTING. but rightly may be comprehended as exalted in state ?

But then THIS TURYAM IS NOT A STATE at all!
its transcends all states too Its JUST BEING.

As rightly the verse says...

TRUTH cannot be KNOWN... but it is not that
IT IS NOT-KNOWN too.

It is something which KNOWN yet NOT-KNOWN (not-known is not UNKNOWN here! )

[S.T.D.]

Shivam is auspiciousness. I havent come across the other meaning of static.

Upashamam maybe rightly translated as being withdrawn into, where the notion or the idea of the world merges back into the Being from which it emerged.

The knowing-not knowing has a deeper significance. Knowing implies someone to know. Then once again we end up with the triad of knower-known-knowledge.

Not knowing implies once again a triad of knower-known-ignorance. Truth being one, therefore it cannot be subject to the Triputis or the triads.

[Drugmachine]

nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness (Inward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

na bahis prajnam = Not outward focused consciousness (Outward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

no'bhayatah-prajnam = Not a combination of the two (Combination of which two-dualism? Where and/or how are the two located and/or organised? Who says this and to whom?)

na prajnanaghanam = not a dark mass of consciousness (What is meant by dark and mass here? Where does ignorance reside? And who says this to whom?

Note: ghanam = volume or mass; therefore, na prajnanaghanam = not a volume or mass of consciousness

na prajnam = not knowing (About what is not knowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

na-aprajnam = not unknowing (About what is not unknowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

adrishtam = unseen (What is unseen and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyavaharayam = not describable (What is not describable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

Note: avyavaharayam = beyond empirical dealings, not related to any worldly dealings.

agrahyam = beyond grasp or intangible (What is beyond grasp and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

alakshanam = devoid of attributes (Well, what are we all doing here anyway?)

acintyam = unthinkable (What is unthinkable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyapadesyam = inexpressible (What is inexpressible and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence (What is 'its'? Who says this and to whom?)

prapancopasarnam = Negation of all phenomena (Is it really so? I don't think so)

santam = peaceful (Is it really so? I don't think so)

sivam = auspicous (Is it really so? I don't think so)

advaitam = non-dual (Well, who is debating here and with whom? Who is contradicting whom and on what?

caturtham manyante = this fourth state (What is this fourth? What does it relate to? Who says this and to whom?)

sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known (Who says this and to whom?)

Since Atma is already assumed, the fallacy of false dichotomy is already committed; and the whole definition becomes the fallacy of 'begging the question' or the fallacy of 'circular reference'.

I have spent enough time on this, please refer to my posts in the following threads and read what I have said and proved.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...r=asc&start=30

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...er=asc&start=0

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=150

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=450

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=465

Therefore, I do not think discussing this topic once more is going to bring anything new and serve any purpose.

However, the rest of you may continue. I may pay occasional visits when I have something to say.

Enjoy the discussion.

[MannoFr]

here is a nice article on Einstein telling that he is not an atheist. His beautiful quaote is

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...7298-2,00.html

[Slonopotam845]

Spinoza's God was refuted by the Big Bang

First of all, Einstein’s religious beliefs had kept changing over time. From the beginning, Einstein believed in a static universe that operated under deterministic laws of physics; and therefore he rejected the belief in a Creator God. But he was impressed with Spinoza’s concept of God as described in the article, which allowed him to continue his religious beliefs as well as a determinist.

Later, Einstein applied his own field equations of general theory of relativity with the insertion of a cosmological constant to develop a static model of the universe. But Hubble’s observational evidences of redshifts of cosmic structures falsified Einstein’s belief of a static universe and proved that the universe was not static but it was expanding.

Einstein’s own field equations of general theory of relativity were used to develop the Big Bang model of an expanding universe, which remains valid for our universe.

Einstein later realised his mistake and admitted that he committed the biggest blunder of his life by introducing the cosmological constant in his field equations.

Also, the ever-mounting success of quantum theory issued even a bigger and fatal blow to Einstein’s deterministic beliefs.

With all these mounting evidences, Einstein had no choice but to admit to the beginning of the universe, which also refuted his belief in the Spinoza’s God.

Thus, with all these changes and new developments in theoretical and experimental physics, Einstein’s religious beliefs also kept changing over time.

Finally, Einstein settled his religious feelings in Buddhism; and that is how he remained for the rest of his life.

The entire collection of Einstein’s quotes in circulation, clearly shows how his religious beliefs gradually changed and drifted over the time.

There are numerous books and articles that give clear account of how new developments in physical science changed Einstein.

The following two references are just exemplary two references from the set of many, which clearly describes Einstein’s struggle in coming to terms with his beliefs.

• 1. "A Brief History of Time" - By Stephen Hawking
  
  2. "The Universe Unfolding" - Edited by Hermann Bondi and Miranda Weston-Smith

[Big A]

Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory
Sean at 6:21 pm, February 4th, 2006

You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

…

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”

Emphasis added. Draw your own conclusions, I’m feeling a bit of outrage fatigue at the moment.

Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. Also Pharyngula, Balloon Juice, Stranger Fruit, Gary Farber, Mark Kleiman, World O’ Crap, and Hullabaloo.

Update again, for our new visitors: Folks, of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity.

Of course the initial singularity (the “Bang” itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.

It’s too bad that scientific education in this country is so poor that many people don’t understand what is meant by “theory” or “model.” It doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04...just-a-theory/

[Big A]

When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

This was said almost before his death. If he lived some more years may be he would have written a commentary on it too.

[Beerinkol]

From the same article:

He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition.

Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

"I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will.

His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will.

Einstein, on the other hand, believed that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. "Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.

This determinism appalled some friends such as Max Born, who thought it completely undermined the foundations of human morality. "I cannot understand how you can combine an entirely mechanistic universe with the freedom of the ethical individual," he wrote Einstein. "To me a deterministic world is quite abhorrent.

For Born, quantum uncertainty provided an escape from this dilemma.

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism

I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a God..." Enjoy the paradox

But don't expect to find any clues in your horoscopes.

[brraverishhh]

I dont know if anybody can quote

U.G.Krishnamoorthy's phil here.

He for one, was an athiest (if thats the right term to refer him)

yet, WAS AN ENLIGHTENED AND REALISED soul

ANYbody has idea bout him or his quotes or articles or views?

[HedgeYourBets]

Dear all,

Sometimes I weirdly feel,

ATHIESTS are closer to TERMINOLOGY CALLED TRUTH

How many of u agree?

[radikal]

That depends as well.

The most rational atheists are people who only believe in what happens in front of them and what might have caused them and analyse those causes...some prominent scientists are quite close to this sort of atheism...the rest are situationally induced atheists...meaning because of something they expected GOD to do or rectify he did not and their belief is gone since then...children born retarded...tsunami disaster can be considered some of these situations.


Some are just atheists by default as in they are moderate and not really into the theory that GOD does not exist....these people are more closer agnostic followers.

Followers of truth are not necessarily atheists...if GOD is part of a truth or the theory of a supreme being is proven...then atheism is ruled out..atheism is against the theology of GOD and what he might have done or possibly inspired in the human race...the followers of truth are soaked in identifying the facts that happen in the world without any influence of theories...its just analysing whats happening in this world and at the same time applying logical thinking

[S.T.D.]

Dear SK

Athiest deny a God that the theist beleive in.

Theist beleive in a God that is "personified" and confuse with the symbolic image and the intended "Truth" .

"Enlightened" are those who realizes "Truth".

I dont think UG is a atheist. Look at his beautiful quote

The search ends with the realization that there is no such thing as enlightenment. By searching, you want to be free from the self, but whatever you are doing to free yourself from the self is the self. How can I make you understand this simple thing? There is no 'how'. If I tell you that, it will only add more momentum to that.... --U.G.

http://www.well.com/

[HedgeYourBets]

Pradeep,

I wanna read more of UG. I would get back on this soon

hulk,

No time for serious reading or disc now . Would get back later.

to all,
keep posting . thanks

Whether we agree with each other or not, discussing this is not waste of time.

Sometime, someway, for someone DAWN would happen. I am sure.

[Paul Bunyan]

By the age of twenty-one U.G. had become a quasi-atheist, studying secular western philosophy and psychology at the University of Madras.

Q: If what you are saying is true, then no one has any freedom of action; for everything one does has a cause, and all causes have a final cause.

U.G.: Aha! Why do you assume that everything must have a beginning, an ultimate cause? Cause-and-effect may be just a casual thing. Events may just occur, just happen. The whole process of evolution may be just another happening, a causeless event. Why must you insist that everything must have a creator, that the whole thing must have sprung from some ultimate cause?

Q: What is your concept of God? Very often you say that God alone can help.

UG: No, that's a manner of speaking. (Laughs) Man has to be saved from God -- that is very essential because ... I don't mean God in the sense in which you use the word "God"; I mean all that 'God' stands for, not only God, but all that is associated with that concept of God -- even karma, reincarnation, rebirth, life after death, the whole thing, the whole business of what you call the "great heritage of India" all that, you see. Man has to be saved from the heritage of India. Not only the people; the country has to be saved from that heritage. (Not by revolution, not the way they have done it in the communist countries -- that's not the way. I don't know why; you see, this is a very tricky subject.) Otherwise there is no hope for the individual and no hope for the country.

How can I ever forget what he (UG) said that day!

UG: The quest for God has become such an obsessive factor in the lives of human beings, because of the impossibility of achieving pleasure without pain. That messy thing called the mind has created many destructive things. By far the most destructive of them all is God. God has become the ultimate pleasure. The variations of God-- self-realization, moksha or liberation, fashionable transformation gimmicks, the first and the last freedom and all the freedoms that come in between--are the ones that are pushing man into a manic-depressive state. Somewhere along the line of evolution, man experienced self-consciousness for the first time in contradistinction to the way consciousness is functioning in other species. It was there, in that division of consciousness, that God, along with the nuclear doctrine that is threatening the extinction of all that nature has created with such tremendous care, was born.

UG: No power on this earth, no god, no avatar, can halt this. Man is doomed. He has no freedom of action. All we can do is to wait for the end of the world--even while we talk of ways to stop a nuclear holocaust. This may sound like Jeremiah or an apocalyptic warning of a prophet of doom.

U.G. was like a raging bull; his fury was stunning. It was strangely attractive.

Q: What is the Purpose of Life?

UG: First of all this question is born out of the assumption that we know something about life. We do know about the biochemistry, the physiology, and the anatomy of life.

However, scientists have not discovered any purpose for life. Life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup, and it took ten billion years to make us.

There is neither a direction nor a purpose for life. But what we are concerned is about living not life. Living is our relationship with our fellow beings, with the life around, for material benefits.

Q: 'Do you have any special attitude toward sexuality?' I asked.

U.G. answered: God and sex spring from the same source. God is the ultimate pleasure. God has to go first before sex goes. Why should sex go?

I felt scorched. Accidentally I had touched a live wire. Walked into a field of mines. His words jolted me out of the spiritual coma I had sunk into. I was desperate. I needed a `trip' badly. It was LSD, which had initiated me into the world of meditation. It had given me an entire generation of the 'flower children' a taste of the mystical. The desire to relive this chemically induced experience drew me into by-lanes of the spiritual bazaar.

That evening, as I dimmed the lights of my room and sat down to meditate, the after-image of U.G. loomed there in the darkness. His words resonated in my head. 'Meditation is warfare,' said U.G. as I was leaving his place. For the first time in two years, since my acquaintance with Rajneesh, I panicked and found that I could not meditate. I wandered out into the streets. The street dogs, which at first sight barked, soon knew that I was one of them. I stood by a fire with strangers. The night was cold. Flames rushed up in yellow sheets. Sparks glittered in our eyes. All the men around the fire were drunk. The fire held us and comforted us all. 'Are you Mahesh Bhatt,' asked one of them. 'Yes,' I answered.

‘Wear this, Mahesh. Everything will be fine. You are doing well.' His words comforted me. He told me things I wanted to hear. Unfortunately, this feeling of well-being did not last long. I had to go back again and again to the Ashram front office, begging for one more darshan with the Bhagwan. I was like a drug addict, desperately hunting for his next fix. Rajneesh had become my crutch.

My encounter with U.G. had left me traumatized. Deep within me a wound festered. You can run, but you cannot hide. You can lie to the whole world, but you cannot lie to yourself. I knew my days with Rajneesh were numbered. The walls of paradise had begun to crack. My Bhagwan was dying within me and there was nothing I could do.

It was inevitable, I said to myself as I watched the remains of my broken mala (given to me by Rajneesh) slowly disappear down the toilet. It felt so strange to be free of the dog collar, which had kept me on a leash for almost three years. I was tired of the life I had been leading. I was tired of the man I was. The years spent in the Rajneesh Ashram had not contributed in any way toward my self-improvement.

It's a breach of trust on your part. He says he works so hard on you. If you don't do that, he says he will destroy you, Mahesh.' He looked at me as if my days on this earth were numbered. There was a heavy silence in the make-up room. I had rebelled against ‘God'. His wrath was now directed at me.

I was angry. I remembered how Rajneesh had given discourses on unconditional love and had spoken at great length about how detestable it was for man to be so possessive. It was disgusting now to see him behave just like any jilted lover, unable to swallow a rejection. He was just a wordsmith peddling half-truths, high-sounding phrases and holy concepts. And that's what people wanted, not the blunt facts. At this time U.G.'s words came to my rescue: ‘A guru is one who tells you to throw away all crutches. He would ask you to walk and if you fall, he would say that you will rise and walk.' These words gave me unimaginable courage. ‘Who is afraid of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Get up,' I said to myself. ‘Get up on your own two feet, no matter how shaky they are, and walk.' Once I did that, there was no looking back.

The front office of the Rajneesh Ashram had warned the sannyasis against seeing U.G. After they met U.G., many of Rajneesh's very close devotees had quit the ashram. I remember in those days, Rajneesh gave four talks against U.G. calling him all sorts of names. ‘U.G., you have not said a word in response to the repeated attacks Rajneesh has been making on you of late. Why? I have also noticed that you don't say much against any particular guru,' I asked. His reply was unusual:

UG: Gurus play a social role; so do prostitutes. Unfortunately in society what the gurus are offering is not only socially acceptable but also considered the be-all and end-all of our existence. The others are not. You choose what suits you best....

His words freed me from the search for the solution to end my phobia. I am still scared of the dark but I am not scared that I am scared of the dark!

Sujit was speechless. At this point a politician waylaid U.G. and asked:

Q: 'If humanity is to be saved from the chaos of its own making, what role can India play in restoring peace to mankind? Can the heritage of India be of any value to mankind?'

U.G.'s answer was: 'India has neither the spiritual power nor the material strength to be of any help to mankind. Sorry.'

I asked:

Q: 'Is it possible to avert the catastrophe by somehow changing or improving human nature?'

What he said to me was something I had not asked for:

UG: Man is merely a biological being. There is no spiritual side to his nature. All your virtues, principles, beliefs, ideas and spiritual values imposed on you by your culture are mere affectations. They haven't touched anything in you. Religion exploited for centuries the devoutness, pious ness and whole souled fervour of the religious man. Not in `Love thy neighbour as thyself' but in the terror that if you try to kill your neighbour you will also be destroyed along with him, lies the future of mankind. How long is anyone's guess.

http://www.well.com/~jct/

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

ATHIESTS are closer to TERMINOLOGY CALLED TRUTH We know there is an atman in each of us. An atheist is simply one who is not in touch with this atman. Nevertheless, the atman is there at all times. So what does that say about an atheist...

"Devout men (Yogins) who are intent (thereon) see this (spirit) seated in themselves; but the senseless , whose minds are unformed , see it not. "

- Gita

I don't think being senseless and having an unformed mind qualifies one as being closer to the truth.

[radikal]

Refutation of the permanence of the soul

This acute philosopher easily perceived the insufficiency of the common argument, which attempts to prove that the soul - if one grants that it is a simple being - cannot perish by dissolution; he saw it is not impossible for it to cease to be by disappearance. He endeavoured to prove in his phaedo, that the soul cannot be annihilated, by showing that a simple being cannot cease to exist. Inasmuch as, he said, a simple existence cannot diminish, nor gradually lose portions of its being, and thus be by degrees reduced to nothing (for it possesses no parts, and therefore no multiplicity), between the moment in which it is, and the moment in which it is not, no time can be discovered - which is impossible. But this simple nature, which contains no parts external to each other, and consequently no extensive quantity, we cannot refuse to it any less than any other being, intensive quantity, that is a degree of reality in regard to all its faculties, nay, to all that constitutes its existence.

But this degree of reality can become less and less through infinite series of smaller degrees. It follows; therefore, that this supposed soul, the permanence of which is not assured in any other way, may, if not by decomposition, then by gradual loss (remission) of its powers (consequently by elanguescence, if I may employ this expression), be changed into nothing.

- Immanuel Kant