Monday, February 7, 2011

The Soul - do we have one?

Today I'd like to raise the question of whether we possess a soul and, if so, what this soul might consist of. Perhaps a good way to begin is by elimination - if we determine what is not a soul in us, then what remains we may presume to be a soul.

We have already spoken at some length (see 'tearing down the ediface') about the nature of thought in relation to being. We determined that thought, excluded from the vital present (as past and past projected into the future) cannot approach or explain being. We further noted that individual thoughts cannot be said to originate in a unified consciousness but, rather, are the manifestation of a multitude of often conflicting little 'I's. Therefore thought cannot be a manifestation of the soul.


We know from mainstream religious texts that the soul is supposed to be somehow independent of the body - the soul being immortal and the body being mortal. But before we begin speaking about the independence of the soul from the body, we should first be clear about what we mean by body. Clearly the obvious physical form cannot be the soul because it decomposes upon death. But religious and mystical traditions also speak of a so-called subtle body - the body kesdjan of the Gurdjieffians, the astral body of the Yogic traditions.

Secular philosophy supports the possibility of a subtle body - for example, Heidegger's extension of feeling - when I write with a pencil my experience of being extends to include the pencil, it is as though I am writing with my finger. But if the pencil breaks I am suddenly aware that I am holding a tool - it is no longer a part of me and my being shrinks back into the confines of my physical form.

Pseudo-scientific arguments can also be raised - for example, the phenomenon of Kirlian photography, which appears to capture energetic fields around living organisms (many examples can be found on the web). One might also argue that Neurological speculation supports at least the possibility of something like a subtle body - I am thinking particularly of amputees who retain a sensation of their missing limbs.

But even if we accept the existence of a subtle body, and I'm not sure that I do (the jury is still out!), can this be said to be identical with the concept of the soul? I don't think so.

Because it seems that such an energetic body would still be fundamentally corporeal, although of finer matter than the physical body, and also cannot be considered as wholly independent of the body. Taking the case of Kirlian photography, for example, there are numerous examples of broken leaves whose missing parts are completed by the energetic field - but we don't see photographs of energetic fields without leaves at all. So, even assuming the existence of a subtle body, we must nevertheless conclude that the soul is something other.

Hence the soul is not synonymous with mind nor body (neither gross nor subtle). One can exclude the emotions on the same grounds as the so-called subtle body - that they are not sufficiently independent of either mind or body to be considered as the soul.

According to religious traditions it is the soul that is unaltered by death, that survives death. So the question must be asked: what is there in me that is unaffected by external circumstances? Death, surely, must be the greatest physical-emotional-mental trauma that an individual ever encounters - so if there is nothing in me that can withstand day to day stresses, nothing that can resist the hypnotic sleep of contemporary existence, then what in me could possibly withstand death?

If I am honest I will admit that there nothing in my being that is sufficiently impartial to be a 'soul' in the traditional sense of the word. I react to everything around me - anxiety and tensions plague the body, the emotional and mental states can be rocked even by receiving the mildest of insults. And I will also admit that when I strip away all that is not the soul - all the thoughts, emotions, physical manifestations - I find nothing beneath them.

None of this, of course, proves the nonexistence of the soul. What it does establish, however, is that evidence of the soul is not forthcoming. Therefore one of the following statements must be true:
(1) the soul is nonexistent
(2) the soul is imperceptible and, therefore, for all practical purposes nonexistent (unable to be consciously acted upon)
(3) the soul is currently imperceptible and exists in embryo - or, in other words, is able to be consciously acted upon or cultivated in some sense.

It is the last of these three statements that is reiterated in the esoteric subtext of major religions and I would argue that esoteric traditions, in general, share a common aim of 'growing' souls from embryos - "struggling to make a soul", as Orwell says. The Sufic allegory of the two rivers can be seen as an extension of this idea - one river pours into the ocean, the other into the void. For a time, a finite time, the rivers run parallel and one may cross.

If the soul is nonexistent then the question of being is only another abstraction without practical use. Likewise, if the soul is imperceptible for the duration of our lives, then we are helpless to effect any change by direct action. Therefore the hope of the individual lies in the last statement of the three, that we are born with a soul in embryo - and that by certain methods that embryo can be cultivated into something resembling the religious definition of a soul.

15 comments:

  1. So what of reincarnation? Can some men be born purely and without accident, luck or circumstance enabeling him a chance at the possible evolution of a soul? could he be born already to become "food"?
    what of those who have gone a distance before--in a past life, worked towards growing a soul, and have come back now in need of remembering--and furthering their "soul's" development?
    perhaps as there are "levels" of man, there are levels of soul?
    I know every man goes through much in his life, but it is true, that only if we are aware of our suffering, will we solidify anything in us--if we blow it all out our everyloving ass, what goes is that for us. :) it is all for not; creating only more emptiness and less chances for miracles.
    I have wondered many times about the cnahnces one is given in life--the impossible chances for soul building/doing/seeing/lifting the blinder off and waking--even if just for a moment, there has got to be a first time one sees this window of opprotunity for growth. now what is it that creates these chances? if not something from inside manifesting outside our sleeping selves, giving us a chance to begin. perhaps to begin again--or continue, as it were towards crystalization of soul.
    There are times I have felt the presence of light from my belly, a fine, fine light. It is much like a mist over water spinning in a beam of sun...this does not seem a solid thing. But perhaps it is the makings for something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Kristin, reincarnation may happen but it won't help us to dwell on that possibility. If we think we have more lives then we won't feel the urgency of living this one correctly. Yes, perhaps we are born to be food - almost certainly - plants, animals, minerals are all food so why would we be an exception? but this is a topic for another discussion. And, in any case, we may have many simultaneous functions - food being only one of them. Suffering is important - but only conscious suffering. Unconscious suffering is only accidental, but conscious suffering changes something in us. And I also believe, like you, that certain efforts can make us aware of something that might become permanent. Without this effort it is only an illusion - although the Christian church promotes a view of the soul as being automatically present and fully mature in all human beings at birth, the new testament paints a different picture if you read it carefully. I know this is not a comforting thought but perhaps nature only takes us so far - perhaps, at a certain point, evolution must become a conscious act. But don't take me too seriously . . . you know I'm groping about in the dark as much as anyone!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi all, I share similar unease to the other latecomers in that I have not been with this stream of enquiry from the start however I feel to give my own views on the soul in this entry.
    .
    First, I will be upfront and say that I generally avoid froums such as these as, by and large, its a lot of words/concepts and at this stage in my life I don't find much cause to enter philosophical, theological or spiritual debates as they seem fairly counter-productive to me. It seems that by and large Thought is an extremely seductive nymph and debate, while it seems healthy to some, if often more resembling the hopeless plight of the addict ("I'll quit... right after this last drink!") In other words, if you will include me here its best to think of me as a traveller, enjoying a little conversation and getting to know everyone. Its not to say I don't appreciate the "urgency of being" trip but by and large "my yoke is simple" and I feel that trying to cognize everything for the most part adds unneccesary confusion. If Plato were giving a sermon I'm more'n likely the guy who would be watching the way his beard moved in the breeze when he talked or some other thing, the poetry of his jawline, the way the mist of his saliva made nice patterns against the sunlight. By and large, we miss so much when we try to "understand". I am no longer interested in understanding. As far as I'm concerned, having tried many things of a spiritual nature and gotten almost the counter opposite to what I expected, I reason that the only true Wisdom belongs to the Goof, the Fool, the Heyokah.
    .
    That established, we all burn with enquiry, and it seems that when something is answered it opens up more questions. While we are feeling as if in a desert of meaning/being, we wonder what this "soul" is about, thinking "there must be more to it than this". This is what usually motivates one on any path, toward Belief (thought) or Devotion (practise). It is a very strange irony indeed, for it seems that we desire a greater sense of completness and yet the action of striving for more completeness is complicit in affirming the condition of lack. In other words by contending that something is missing, its as if all our endeavours are kind of cursed from the beginning as we are not proceeding from a place of fullness but rather a state of Ambition (we want to attain something; enlightenment, knowledge, the end of pain, a soul etc.) Its a rather tried and true analogy, especially in New Age tyep circles, but it seems the general pattern of consciousness is to 1) Have Everything, 2) Have No Knowledge Of Having Everything and so 3) Foster The Illusion Of Duality so that It Can Know Itself Having Everything. As the Hindus observe in their epic "kalpas" and Yuga ages, the Self, undivided plays a game with itself, a Drama by imagining there is an Other. Pandora's Box is opened and we have all of this separation and pain, but a few wonderful gems that can only be known within The Game. If somebody, in all their ascetic wisdom, cannot see the beauty of Couplehood, they may be enlighened though not "delighted" in my view. I once studied at a Steiner mystery school and they gave us this rule-of-thumb which I found simplistic at the time but seems to ring true. The East is a force that tries to return to the original Paradise, the Undivided Self. The West tries to move forward and create a new Paradise. One is spiritual "regression" so to speak and the other is full of risk, lacking guarantee, relying only on the Creative potential of Man, which may or may not exist.
    .
    TBC

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a good entry point to talk of the soul, which may or may not exist. In this thick of this uncertainty, we adopt a picture that resonates with it. Out of a desire for comfort? Maybe. Out of necessity, a kind of "spiritual survival plan"? Perhaps. Because we need a "goal" or else life is meaningless? More than likely. But we will each find something that is "a good fit", and it no more proves the absolute rightness of it as a path than we can say red M&M's are better than Yellow M&M's. We find something that feels a good match, a philosophy, a system. And often we find they are easily replaced when something else comes along that appears to be a better "fit". As hard as it is to admit, perhaps we take refuge even in a "no comfort" philosophy like the Fourth Way because it fits the contours of our circumstance, our conditioning, upbringing, constitution and many other factors. It makes sense and gives a sense of hope, though a stange and obscure one.
    .
    That being said, when we talk of what we believe the Soul to be, what the big picture is, and attempt to answer these questions, I think we should be honest enough to say it the spirit of "Well I don't really know but this kinda feels right to me. It makes sense and gives me a scaffold to hang my life on, at least for now." If we really knew anything, mostly we would not be having these types of conversations. At any rate, its a good pastime, a pleasant game. In that spirit, I give you my humble view of the soul, the picture that was passed down to me that seemed to eclipse my previous understanding.
    .
    My understanding of the soul is that actually we have two souls, a Mortal Soul and Immortal Soul along with a Physical Body which occupies its own realm but is dependent on the other bodies. Between the Mortal Soul and the Eternal/Immortal Soul is the Mental/Consciousness Body and "in" the Eternal soul is our Divine Will, like the seed of the tree, a tiny spark. So that gives five bodies that are all inter-related. When people talk of the soul, usually they lump two quite different souls into one concept and it is very problematic. In order to get the difference, it is necessary to return to shamanic views of the soul, the original and unsurpassed knowledge. When you have a trauma in your life, say a life threatening injury or accident, the eternal soul "vacates" because it is not buito deal with danger. Its business is to Thrive, not Survive. When the eternal soul vacates, the mortal Soul moves in as a kind of band-aid cure. The mortal soul is the reflexive mechanisms of the personality, the rigid postures we carry in our bodies in order to "survive". All of these debates too, I should point out, are the realm of the Mortal soul. It is more present than we realize. I say something, you react. I hit the ball, you hit it back. This is really what the body kesdjan is, it is in the breath, posture, channels and subtle energy which forms a blueprint for the physical body.
    .
    TBC

    ReplyDelete
  5. The eternal soul is very different, it is in the realm of the timeless and has no axe to grind, no appointment to keep. So therefore it does not care about looking good, winning the conversation, knowing anything, having goals or amitions. To the eternal soul Life is a journey, we are here to thrive, not survive. Unfortunately in modern society, the most traumatised species in the galaxy, we have around 99% soul loss meaning the Mortal Soul must clatter and clank with no infusion of our eternal soul. As such, we rely on recipes for everything, we pose and look a certain way in order for the personality to survive, to look like the real thing, and to sweet talk ourselves into believing we have a soul when in actual fact our eternal soul vanished a long time ago and is kidda just "hanging out" outside time and space for us to welcome it back in. This is what "soul retrieval" is, and it is my humble belief that our purpose here, at this time, is to learn the very sensitive art of calling our soul back home, to help it to feel welcome, to give it a place. The only condition is, it will not profit us, because it does not have survival or sucess as a goal. The best we can do in the meantime is to notice the small windows, the glimpses we get when the Mortal soul had stopped its dominance for a second and the eternal soul can peek through. You should go write a poem when that happens! Some people can feel under your words is some sunlight.
    .
    Is it non-existent? To my mind, no its very real and has a presence in our lives. It is just that it has been stranded outside since we were kids, sometimes even sooner, and we have mostly not learnt how to to conduct it into our lives so that we may live that wild compassion of the soul. As such, we have our band aid cure, the mortal soul, our past actions, experiences, beliefs, opinions, reflexes, recipes, reactions, standpoints, concepts, politics, skills etc. To many people, this is enough and they do not sense the absence of their long gone and much loved friend. Those that realize that something is deeply not right, they begin to journey, first straddling the enormys gulf between their false identity and the place where their great Tree once stood. Not a particularly pleasant place to be, but perhaps a necessary one if we are to regain our sanity and live with an ubridled connection to the inspiration of the timeless Soul.

    Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Jim, lots to think about here and, truthfully, I'll need to reread this carefully if I am to respond with the care it deserves. For the moment, though, I think you've hit the nail on the head with your concluding paragraph though you use different language to mine. Because something is, indeed, "deeply not right" and the journey to regain sanity is a most necessary one - hopefully, this is the journey we are beginning together here. Very insightful comment!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will definitely be back later - such a significant question to which I probably have little to contribute, but I want time to read the comments too before I attempt to do so. Brava Judith - this is exceptionally fertile ground for contemplation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Jim, everyone
    Hello! I do believe that thought is incredibly tricky so to speak in that it constantly looks for more, and more in the way of a better understanding. Just talking about it would seem to only strengthen it. However, having said that it leaves me somewhat 'stuck'. All of us have heard of people in deep meditation most of their lives, others search, read books, listen to CD's. I would also think the goal might be said and or understood differently, enlightenment to peace, love, oneness, etc. I have not seen a drastic or marked increase in any specific camp. Many will say that enlightenment can't be attained by effort. I would agree in this because it is 'my thoughts' that we (essence/spirit) are already enlightened and therefore only need awareness. All of the lack that we feel is again driven by thought/ego looking for more. My guess is that understanding of being and enlightenment can't be expressed, written or spoken and must be experienced. As in the Tao de Ching, where it is written, (paraphrase)The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. Which to me means that truth can't be spoken (a least in our language) it can only be spoken about or pointed too. There again is food for the mind because we forget that the words are only pointers and take them literally and get wrapped up in the embedded dualities and paradoxes that are inherent when using language. All that being said, searching then becomes yet another role, largely spent trying to find ourselves in 'things' which leads to years of confusion. So, at the end of the day every person that is enlightened or claims enlightenment writes a book, creates a CD, etc, which of course has the implication that we could read something and gain enlightenment by understanding. I have felt that it is awareness that I need, not more books or a better understanding. Which leaves me with another egoic question which is how to gain the awareness. The conundrum I often see is that if you don't seek, you definitely will not gain awareness but if you do then you have become a seeker. I must admit I am short on education in this and many other topics but my feeling has been that there are basically two things, forms and formless. All forms die(changes form or returns to formless), what we are is formless and never dies. So underneath this body and false self/s there is a spirit/soul which is timeless/formless and eternal. It would seem that looking outside will never bear fruit, and I agree our lives are anything but conducive to awareness of being/spirit. I have also entertained the thought that while many thing of heave and up in the sky, I might say that enlightenment is more than we could ever understand and lack of it and the suffering it causes definitely seems like hell. I know this differs from some of our contributors here but I offer it as a perspective in our discussion. Thanks to everyone again for this blog. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm of a religious tradition that of course speaks of the soul, as many do, as something very real if at the same time almost indescribable. So even though I've long since escaped the boundaries of that tradition, many fundamental beliefs remain at the core of an expanded perception. Therefore, in fairness to all, I must say that there might be a lack of objectivity in my response to your question.

    Do we have a soul - yes. Can I prove that? Probably not. Some equate the soul with conscience, a function of the superego, and therefore, not the soul itself though it might be the "voice" of the soul. Personally, however, I do not think that the soul needs a "moralizing" agent. It's the physical body and the mind that needs such a thing.
    I can only say what I believe the soul to be. I'm not even sure I can explain something as ineffable as the concept of the soul. But I think that it's my "share" so to speak of the divine energy of the Source, whatever one calls that. It's the indefinable energy that like electricity proceeds from and returns to the Source on a kind of "alternating current" that while it is housed in my physical body is "mine" only in the sense that it fuels the mind, the heart, the body to become more aware of the divine nature of one's own essence and its connection to all other souls. I suppose one might say my view of the soul is like Emerson's who said in his wonderful essay, "The Oversoul" - We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE.
    I believe that the soul is immortal, connected to all others and to the Source energy - light, love - from which it came and to which it will return, perhaps to be sent out again. It is that essence which is most truly "me" and for which, in THIS temporal plane, I try to speak and act in some way to uncover, reflect and spark an awareness both within myself and others of the light and love that is our truest and most divine "self."
    I apologize if that sounded "preachy" - it certainly isn't meant to be. xoxox

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just wish to say, I am learning so much from all of you; pardon me for not having as much to say on any matter, as I really don't know anything about anything. :) I just love the opening of my mind each day I come here and read that which cannot be written. I do think the poets get a bit closer though, to the essence of truth. I believe more than anything: it is the between the lines that is reached (not the words themselves) that touch the places words cannot, where by reaches the "soul/spirit/light" of a being. it is a direct speach to said light, as opposed to the ears/mind.
    Anyway, just wanted to say thank you. perhaps one day i will know more and be able to share more as well.
    x

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anthony, I think much of your comment reflects, to me, the inescapable Paradox of spirituality. That we seek but end up often being "the seeker", another personality not really any different to "the butcher" or "the good husband" etc. If we imagine the negative side to the ego as a kind of parasite, chewing up our life force, then it most certainly licks its lips when we conjure up The Seeker, as it often becomes a somewhat "permnanent" personality, a source of food perhaps for a whole lifetime. Yet, the paradox seems to be that if Pandora's Box is never opened, if we never ask the question, then we never begin. So it seems you have to be a seeker but perhaps we should endeavour to view it as a temporary bridge perhaps rather than a state in itself? I don't know really, but you did express very well the notion that sooner or later it seems futile to read yet another book or CD on enlightenment or listen to a "master" tell us how to get there. From what I've experienced, there are way too many variables in a human's individual experience to follow a recipe book. Life is always more Wild than our attempts to describe it, or tame it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lianne, nice to see you outside the bubble!
    I like that you referred to your religious upbringing in relaying your concept of soul, as it is yet another way of looking at it. Though you obviously have transformed your view as you have lived and grown, it still seems somehow influential to you in a positive way to view the soul as something we all have, by default.
    I was raised atheist with the view of "let him make his own mind up when he's old enough", a well meaning intent perhaps. Later on, seeing that religious, dogmatic and black/white moralising can be deleterious to intelligent perception I did indeed feel somewhat grateful. Yet later on again, I felt much regret and sadness over the "faithlessness" that was inside me, I felt driven by cynicism, cold and judgemental. I even envied (some) people who had been raised in a religious environment. I saw in some people, there was indeed a faith, a light, a love of community, a decency, sometimes an honour and simplicity. Imperfect as it may be, and prone to many control dramas, I have at times felt an emptiness inside me, a kind of hunger for that "communal" religious spirit that I was taught to reject, perhaps even to hate.
    .
    Life is funny, it seems "faith" has many seasons. Though I am young, I still feel I can share this. After spending much of my twenties in more new age and esoteric pursuits, I arrived at the end of the decade perhaps with a desire for the simplicity of, for instance, the teachings of Jesus. Many "high flying" spiritual seekers may see it as a regression, yet actually I believe he was a very sophisticated man, and so different to the moralistic interpretations. So, how would Jesus view the soul? This to me, is a question well worth asking, not in the religious sense but in the sense of "the heart's poetics". I have no conclusive answer, yet your comment prompted me to write this, and I become alive for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Jim -
    I wish I had the time right this minute to speak at some length to your wonderfully honest and insightful comment but I'll try to come back to it when I can. In the meantime, let me say how lovely it is to see you here as well AND that I actually agree with you about Jesus. I think it most likely that he has been far too narrowly viewed, understood or interpreted and as you say, was indeed, a very "sophisticated" man. I don't believe there was anything "moralistic" in his teachings at all (which might get me fired from my present job if I said that too vociferously!) Still I manage to get that point across I hope.
    Again - these exchanges are just wonderfully enlivening, aren't they? And thank you for that too!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father." (Matthew 5:13-16)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Having read all the above I still believe that there are things we can do to raise our awareness, perhaps not so called intelligence, but awareness. This again to me is very important. Whether we call it a search or not probably means little except to the ego. At the end of the day will we not all still move toward the light? With respect to everyone's own path I would like to keep this thread going. Along the way I'm sure we will find many obstacles which we can sit and wait for it to dissolve or go around, each perceived obstacle presents many choices, each time you chose to go towards the light I believe is significant. We each have our own path and though the elements of this world might obscure the path of others before us I think it is important to keep moving. As we walk we might meet others and then our path might take us to the left when they go right and hopefully to meet up again. I know much of this is something we must do alone, internally but still I know is that warm friendship along the way, a loving hand to hold is a blessing.

    ReplyDelete