Nature of the soul

[Tarheeler]

Over the last decade or so my thought and beliefs regarding many theological topics have gone through a lot of changes, and while some ideas have become fairly concrete, others are still developing. The nature of the soul is one that is still under construction.

Growing up, I was taught that we all had a unique soul that acted as a record of our life; it was the soul that would find salvation or punishment after death. According, each soul was specific to the individual; there wasn't any possibility of reincarnation or return.

I had rejected that idea even before I left Christianity, and had started seeing the soul as a Divine spark that was independent of our body. While it does impart certain properties to the human, it doesn't act as a record of our life or as a proxy for us in the afterlife. I felt that after death the soul returned to and rejoined with God until it was sent out again. I always thought about it as being more like recycling than reincarnation.

I know a similar idea exists in Judaism, even though it isn't mainstream, and I've also heard ideas that discuss a situation similar to my understanding of karma (working off past deeds before rejoining with God) and also the idea that the soul is required to perform a specific task before it can return.

I don't necessarily agree with either of those, but I agree with the general idea. But, as I learn and explore, my ideas evolve.

I'm interested in seeing how others understand the nature of the soul and the role it plays.

 

[Madhuri]

My ideas about the soul are based in Vedic teachings.

The soul is the real Self. It is the life force and consciousness that inhabits this temporary material body. Some say that 'I am a body with a soul' but a Hindu says 'I am a soul with a body'.

Soul is Spirit and therefore it's main characteristics are: eternity, knowledge and bliss. This basically means that the soul is eternal, can never be created or destroyed. It means the soul possesses, in its natural state, complete awareness of reality. And it means the soul exists in a state of perfect Love.

This is the nature of God and spirit of which the soul originates and reflects...according to Vedic teachings.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This is from a Buddhist perspective: the soul is part of the ego-self, which is something that is nothing more than an illusion. There is nothing in us, or a part of us, that is eternal and independent of everything else. It is only through lifetimes of delusional thinking that causes us to think that we are independent and have some aspect that is eternal. This is our illusory self, the self that we normally think is us. The only thing in us that is "real" is our Buddha-nature, and that is part of the overall Buddha-nature, called the dharmakaya. However, Buddhists don't view this as either a soul or god in the traditional sense, but something completely different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After having seen firsthand the (entirely physical) effects of injury, disease and drugs on the brain and how these affected the people whi experienced them to a very deep level - to the point that, in some cases, I felt that the original person had been replaced with a new one - I can't help but conclude that *who we are* is inexorably tied up in th physical.

Even setting aside the question of whether an afterlife might exist, I think that one you subtract from me all the aspects of me that are known to have a physical basis, what remains could not be validly called "me"... in the same way that if my heart survives my death by being transplanted, it's not "me" who's survived; it's only a part of me.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Both the Buddhist and Hindu teachings about the self-nature (whatever it is to be called) describe it as wholly different than the body or the mind. Thus, the self-nature isn't what makes a personality, it's the core of awareness.

"Cast off body and mind!"

 

[Madhuri]

Even setting aside the question of whether an afterlife might exist, I think that one you subtract from me all the aspects of me that are known to have a physical basis, what remains could not be validly called "me"... in the same way that if my heart survives my death by being transplanted, it's not "me" who's survived; it's only a part of me.

In Hinduism, this self you are referring to is called the illusion and for the very reasons you have pointed out. The real self is something entirely other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Hinduism, this self you are referring to is called the illusion and for the very reasons you have pointed out. The real self is something entirely other.

In what sense is it "the real self", then? It sounds like if it exists, it would be a thing that's attached to me, not actually "me".

I am my mind. My mind, IMO, is a term for the combined effects of the physical functioning of my brain. I don't see how any "soul" or "true self" could really be me if it doesn't incorporate my mind in some way.

 

[arthra]

The following pretty much summarizes the Baha'i view of the soul...

LXXXII.

Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel.

It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him.

If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.

~ Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 158

Also, the soul is an entity that isn't connected to the body..that is the condition of the soul isn't dependent on the body...It's associated with the body but not part of it in our view.

"Regarding your questions concerning the condition of the soul during illness. The passages in the "Gleanings" make it quite clear that physical ailments, no matter how severe, cannot bring any change in the inherent condition of the soul. As Bahá'u'lláh says: 'The spirit is permanent and steadfast in its station'. The veil or hindrance that interposes between soul and body during physical disease is sickness itself. Sickness reveals itself. Sickness reveals a lack of balance in human organism, an absence of equilibrium in the forces essential for the normal functioning of the human body."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 8, 1936)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 113)

 

[Jainarayan]

In what sense is it "the real self", then? It sounds like if it exists, it would be a thing that's attached to me, not actually "me".

I am my mind. My mind, IMO, is a term for the combined effects of the physical functioning of my brain. I don't see how any "soul" or "true self" could really be me if it doesn't incorporate my mind in some way.

Two articles that explain the Hindu concept.

Ātman, the soul itself.
Jiva, the living essence, the living being.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The Kemetic view of the soul is complex since the Egyptians believed in more then one type of soul.

The two we need to know about are called the ka and the ba. The ka is the personal fleeting soul that is tied with the ego-self. It gives us a sense of personality.

The ba on the other hand is the higher self, the spirit self that acts in harmony with spirit and is not tied to the carnal or ego self. The ba is the true self.

 

[Madhuri]

In what sense is it "the real self", then? It sounds like if it exists, it would be a thing that's attached to me, not actually "me".

I am my mind. My mind, IMO, is a term for the combined effects of the physical functioning of my brain. I don't see how any "soul" or "true self" could really be me if it doesn't incorporate my mind in some way.

The 'real' self is the actual life-force and consciousness. The soul is what animates a body and provides awareness. It exists forever.
The illusory self is the identity we are experiencing now, and that constantly changes and will eventually cease to exist.

One is classified as 'real' because it is unchanging and permanent. The other is an illusion because of it's temporary nature.

If 'you' exist first as a soul and that soul then enters a body, the body would not suddenly be the real you. It's an experience, a dream, an illusion, whatever you want to call it. When the body dies, 'you', the soul, continue to exist.

 

[Gharib]

Islam teaches that the soul is not divine nor that it is reborn into this life again after death.

The soul is us individually, every human who has lived had their own individual soul. The body is just a 'dress' for the soul.

We also believe that the soul expands and retracts, it doesn't add any weight to the body and it has consciousness.

That's just very brief, there is a recent thread on this in the Islamic DIR the link is below if you wish to check it out:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/133989-spirit.html

 

[Tarheeler]

After having seen firsthand the (entirely physical) effects of injury, disease and drugs on the brain and how these affected the people whi experienced them to a very deep level - to the point that, in some cases, I felt that the original person had been replaced with a new one - I can't help but conclude that *who we are* is inexorably tied up in th physical.

Even setting aside the question of whether an afterlife might exist, I think that one you subtract from me all the aspects of me that are known to have a physical basis, what remains could not be validly called "me"... in the same way that if my heart survives my death by being transplanted, it's not "me" who's survived; it's only a part of me.

I agree for the most.

I don't think the soul affects our personality or who we are, but I do think there is some influence in a general sense. I think it's what drives us to be better: to work together, to have compassion and mercy, to improve the world around us.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The Kemetic view of the soul is complex since the Egyptians believed in more then one type of soul.

The two we need to know about are called the ka and the ba. The ka is the personal fleeting soul that is tied with the ego-self. It gives us a sense of personality.

The ba on the other hand is the higher self, the spirit self that acts in harmony with spirit and is not tied to the carnal or ego self. The ba is the true self.

Ka, ba.

Mer ka ba?

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think every soul finds or creates it's own nature, as this is the nature
of the soul.

 

[DreadFish]

I used to "believe" in the idea of a soul, and the idea of no soul kind of scared me. Now, interestingly, I wonder if the concept is really necessary? What is it exactly, that it is necessary? Awareness is the same whether you call is a soul or awareness. Is it the life force that animates otherwise inanimate tissue? What is the benefit of believing in a soul? Also, from the point of view of non-duality, what could a soul possibly be that it is distinct from everything else?

From my point of view, the personality is entirely tied into various causes and conditions that one is subject to during life. This is observable on many levels, like what Penguin mentioned. People change, so we can't conclude that personality attributes are "who a person is".

I just can't quite find what a soul would necessarily be. Im not really dis-believing, but I haven't yet found what I would call a "soul" just yet.

Perhaps, you could call a being's essence it's "soul".

 

[Madhuri]

I used to "believe" in the idea of a soul, and the idea of no soul kind of scared me. Now, interestingly, I wonder if the concept is really necessary? What is it exactly, that it is necessary? Awareness is the same whether you call is a soul or awareness. Is it the life force that animates otherwise inanimate tissue? What is the benefit of believing in a soul? Also, from the point of view of non-duality, what could a soul possibly be that it is distinct from everything else?

I think it is helpful to know about the soul for those who have trouble distinguishing 'self' from 'body', which is most people. To have soul concept, at least the Vedic soul concept, helps to acknowledge that our own Self is the point of awareness as opposed to our fickle mind. It also tells us that this body and mind is impermanent and does not continue after death.

These things are important to know for someone interested in understanding afterlife on an intellectual level, imo.

 

[DreadFish]

I think it is helpful to know about the soul for those who have trouble distinguishing 'self' from 'body', which is most people. To have soul concept, at least the Vedic soul concept, helps to acknowledge that our own Self is the point of awareness as opposed to our fickle mind. It also tells us that this body and mind is impermanent and does not continue after death.

These things are important to know for someone interested in understanding afterlife on an intellectual level, imo.

Yeah. If I do agree with a vedic soul concept, I guess it would have to be advaitic to some degree. Right now, im trying to find where I stand on the issue in the Buddhist sense. There is a bit of evidence that suggests that the Buddha didnt reject an advaitic-type concept of Self in the Tripitaka.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm interested in seeing how others understand the nature of the soul and the role it plays.

I grew up as an atheist who never read the Bible. I barely know of that a human should have a soul. In my concept at that time, I thought that soul is called ghost by humans, as this is basically the concept in our culture.

Till I experienced it myself. I actually experienced that we should be a trinity of soul, spirit and body. The spirit resembles a flying dove, you can't find a better description on earth about it. While Bible is the only book ever uses the 'flying dove' to describe a spirit, which is the Holy Spirit though. It is also possible that He made us in His image that our spirits thus resembles His spirit in a describable form.

From my experience, soul and body are more like a worm and its cocoon. I believe that it's not easy to get rid of your body even after death. The spirit is like a lock to bind the soul to your body. You body and soul will become dividable only when the spirit is flying out. Even then you may have difficulties getting rid of the body.

The soul represents the real you. Before you die it acts like a backup machine waiting for a fail-over. At the moment of your death, it takes over from that point onward. So that you can think you can talk you can memorize the same as you are still with the body. It is transparent (at least by default it is so). Such that we cannot identify each other without a body, the body is our image. Without the body I think it is possible that we can manifest to others in whatever image we'd like to.

I didn't feel anything missing in the absence of my own spirit. I however think that it might carry something from God, such as the moral code or His law put in our hearts and perhaps our earthly emotions such as parental love and so forth. It is said that the spirit will return to God after your death. So perhaps since then you won't have any feeling about your own children or parents and so forth. Earthly relationship may have gone from that point onward.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Yeah. If I do agree with a vedic soul concept, I guess it would have to be advaitic to some degree. Right now, im trying to find where I stand on the issue in the Buddhist sense. There is a bit of evidence that suggests that the Buddha didnt reject an advaitic-type concept of Self in the Tripitaka.

Pabhassara citta