(08-03-2021, 11:59 AM)Anders Wrote: I found this answer on Quora which supports your view more than mine. What I call soul is more like Atman, although I don't know if Atman can be "born" as I described the soul. Maybe I should just call it the individual self! Then there is less risk of redefining terms.
There has been many names for it, but the Atman is best mapped to the word 'consciousness' in english.
Atman seek naturally liberation, just like consciousness seek liberation from 'the veil / border / limitation of soul'.
In sanskrit there is another word that is closer in meaning to the english word of soul, it's JIVA.
There is Atman in every Jiva.
There is Consciousness in every Soul.
Within Jiva, there are many virtual layers (Sanskrit: Maya Kosha)
That's the backdrop context of the saying "Namaste" / "Namaskaram".
Which means "I pay respect to the divinity inside you".
As the divine (atman) is the same in you and me.
To test the understanding is very simple
Does the word "My soul", "Your Soul", "Their Soul" has an understandable meaning?
If yes then it's a 'bordered / limited definition' and not infinite.
While Atman, there is no My Atman, Your Atman, Their Atman.
As for Ra, I think they use "Infinite Creator" to define Atman / Brahman, "Identity" to define Kosha and "Mind Body Spirit complex" to define Soul / Jiva.
The Law of One, though beyond the limitation of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that
all things are one,
that there is no polarity,
no right or wrong,
no disharmony,
but only identity
All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.
Yes I refer to Ra as they, as Ra by itself is a conglomeration of identities, about 9 millions of identities joined up together to identify themselves as Ra.
9 millions of smaller russian dolls inside 1 bigger russian doll labeled as "Ra".
Yet the 'divinity' inside you, inside me and inside Ra is the same.
Namaste.