The soul, suffering, healing, learning, and spirituality [Night Shift split]

The term "soul" means something different in different cultures.  In Genesis in the Bible, God created Adam out of the dust of the Earth, then breathed life (spirit) into him and he "became a living soul."  There is very little in the Bible that gives the impression of a separate soul; probably one or two verses translated from Greek.  Who knows what is lost in the translation?

Well I used to resist using it, but so many here do! Likewise I generally avoided references to God because I think that word has far too many meanings and associations in different groups.

Maybe I should have referred to 'spiritual essence'.

David

The problem is that there is quite a lot of information about people who remember previous lives. These ideas come from that source. In the absence of any other data, I'd rather come to terms with those ideas than dismiss them because they are too horrible.

I'd love there to be much more data about memories of past lives, various taboos make that hard to obtain. As I have pointed out above, the concept that people will train in extremely uncomfortable ways to 'improve' themselves is well established. To me that makes these stories more plausible.

Remember also that we don't know what may apply at the extremes. For example, perhaps the  most severely handicapped are animated by some less sentient form of spirit - we just don't have a sufficiently complete picture of the scheme.

Indeed ~ we don't have any means of accessing that information, nevermind confirming it.

We often do uncomfortable things for the sake of challenging ourselves and our limits. Like a rather exhausting and uncomfortable hike for example. People do it for the challenge, and the thrill of that challenge. It may not be fun or pleasurable in the moment ~ but that can come after, when we reflect on it. There is joy in having challenges to conquer, and joy in finally reaching a self-set milestone.

Likewise... my life was full of heavy pain and suffering... well, there still is pain and suffering, but the Ayahuasca journey finally cleared some very major blockages that have clouded my mind quite a bit. I can finally look back and see that the pain was all worth it, because I am... where I am now, perhaps empowered by the growth that came out of that suffering.

While you're in the suffering... you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Only after the fact, when you're out of the tunnel, can you actually look back and see how far you've come. And if you can do that... you can do more, because, well, why not? It makes it easier to approach bigger goals, now you know you can handle your current ones.

That may well be, but don't forget that the word 'soul' in this context is sometimes referred to as the 'over-soul' is not quite the same as what is usually referred to as the soul, as in, "His soul separated from his body".

I'd be interested if others commented on just how well grounded this picture is.

Since the number of people on the planet is increasing, it is interesting to speculate if an over-soul can animate more than one body at once.

If this topic ceased to be taboo, who knows what might be found out!

David

I do find that phrase a bit weird, as it vaguely implies that the person isn't their soul or something. Like the idea of "selling your soul [to the devil]" or "losing your soul", as if it's an object to be traded or lost. In reality, we are the Soul ~ well, the incarnate self is part of it, anyways. So, there's no separating from, selling or losing the soul. Not in any literal sense.

I do wonder, in the case of bacteria that multiply themselves basically constantly, if it's like that. Or with plants where you can take a cutting, plant it, and it will grow into a separate physical plant.

I do wonder, in the case of bacteria that multiply themselves basically constantly, if it's like that. Or with plants where you can take a cutting, plant it, and it will grow into a separate physical plant.

I think your comment lies at the heart of this subject. You have probably read that people who receive a new heart, sometimes acquire some of the personality of the dead donor! Other types of transplant occasionally do the same thing!

Also, of course, a huge part of our bodies are composed of bacteria and fungi.

One in particular is able to infect a particucular kind of ant and cause it to behave in a peculiar way that helps the fungi, and is deadly to the ant.

See Merlin Sheldrake's book "Entangled Life" for full details.

Thus whether at some level we are not isolated beings seems decidedly fuzzy, but on the other hand, when someone dies it does seem as if something discrete happens, even if some of their cells are still alive in a test tube. I have  yet to hear of the work of mediums being 'debunked' by appealing to the idea that the memories and personality of the deceased leak out in the form of fungi!

All this makes me feel that we are like children doing experiments with chemicals or electronic components. We will probably make the most progress if we keep our questions simple!

David

Half of it is my intuition providing the drive, I think. At some points, I'm half-aware of it, just letting it happen. It's hard to describe, because I'm not aware of the source. It's just... stuff coming from somewhere, that rings true. It's all I have. I can only hope that it is true, heh...


I've seen various ideas over the years, along with various idea I myself have considered, that seem to ring true according to my intuition. Some stuff just... seems to click, somehow. When it's a clear intuition at least. And it's not always clear, heh. Nice when it is, though. Not that the clarity ever lasts. It comes and goes as it needs to, I guess.


It is only unfair if you perceive it that way... I see it as being... a combination of fair and unfair to every incarnate entity ~ human or otherwise. Humans aren't the only ones living an incarnate existence. Every incarnate entity has its purpose and place. How their Souls choose their lives aren't particularly different to how our Souls do it ~ it's simply just a different ego-archetype and complimentary physical form. Though, that can be harder to wrap one's head around, understandably. I struggle to myself, but that's because it's the problem of trying to comprehend non-human psychology.

I just ran across what appears to be an amazingly similar explication to yours of the nature of the soul and the reincarnation process, in a book by Dr. Oliver Lazar titled “Beyond Matter.” Prof. Dr Oliver S. Lazar is a medical doctor and a professor of computer science. He apparently had an experience in which the spiritual world revealed itself to him after the tragic accidental death of a girl who seemed to be a stranger to him. It was a profound spiritual/psychic experience. This book won the Scientific and Medical Network Book Prize 2023.

https://www.amazon.com/BEYOND-MATTER-exp...696&sr=8-1

From the Amazon summary: "In this book Dr. Lazar examines current research into the subject of our origins and existence from a scientific, philosophical and spiritual perspective and reports on an emerging paradigm shift in our society. With the world's largest empirical study on afterlife contacts with 500 participants, but also with his criticism of current doctrines on the origin of life and the theory of evolution, he shakes the materialist world view."

Excerpts from the book:

"...basically, we all have a higher self, a kind of main soul in the spiritual world, which contains all our aspects from previous and future lives.  This main soul always remains in the spiritual world, and when we incarnate only parts of this main soul are extracted, combined and formed into a new individual human soul.  This constellation of soul parts is unique and will only exist once in this form.  However, this human soul of an individual is permanently in contact with its main soul rather in the way of a radio link.  If one has lived one’s life as this unique person, all one’s soul parts will return to the main soul complete with one’s new experiences after death.  So, when I die one day as Oliver the soul aspects that made me up will merge again with my main soul.  There I am stored eternally as Oliver and will never incarnate again in this constellation.  In these circumstances no one need to fear that the soul of a loved one has already reincarnated and can no longer be encountered.  In a new incarnation new parts of my main soul would again be combined and a new individual would be formed.  This new individual soul would then also carry the experiences and memories of me (Oliver).”
......................................
“. . . It is hard to understand this in our present human state when we all perceive ourselves so clearly as individuals on earth.  I imagine it in such a way that when we return to our main soul, we will become aware that as human beings we have actually only slipped into a role.  We will perceive ourselves as a whole main soul, but we can slip back into the respective roles of our lives at any time.”

This description is also quite close to the system as explained in many readings by the noted spiritual channeler Ron Scolastico. It appears that this "the oversoul is what survives" theory is being confirmed by multiple psychic sources.

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, this scheme as described seems to teach that what ultimately survives physical death is a vast "oversoul" of some sort with also a vastly different personality, goals, and purposes than the just incarnated human personality which is unique to that physical life. It looks (to me at least) to essentially be another different being. The just incarnated human personality is temporary and only "survives" as memories in the oversoul, not as a sentient conscious human personality. 

So apparently we can forget about having real personal "survival" and an afterlife. What will then "perceive itself as a whole main soul" just isn't the human personality. It isn't "you", it's somebody else that survives.

I can only point out in argument that this picture seems to conflict drastically with the empirical evidence of reams of NDE accounts of consciousness continued for a time in an expanded but still human personality form after (tempory) death, and also a considerable number of verified mediumistic communications with apparently surviving deceased human personalities. It's not immediately clear how to reconcile these kinds of paranormal data with the "what survives is the oversoul" doctrine, other than to introduce several collateral hypotheses which would invoke the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony. 

This issue appears to be unresolvable at present.

I just ran across what appears to be an amazingly similar explication to yours of the nature of the soul and the reincarnation process, in a book by Dr. Oliver Lazar titled “Beyond Matter.” Prof. Dr Oliver S. Lazar is a medical doctor and a professor of computer science. He apparently had an experience in which the spiritual world revealed itself to him after the tragic accidental death of a girl who seemed to be a stranger to him. It was a profound spiritual/psychic experience. This book won the Scientific and Medical Network Book Prize 2023.

https://www.amazon.com/BEYOND-MATTER-exp...696&sr=8-1

From the Amazon summary: "In this book Dr. Lazar examines current research into the subject of our origins and existence from a scientific, philosophical and spiritual perspective and reports on an emerging paradigm shift in our society. With the world's largest empirical study on afterlife contacts with 500 participants, but also with his criticism of current doctrines on the origin of life and the theory of evolution, he shakes the materialist world view."

Excerpts from the book:

Interesting... though I do not share his interpretations. I guess it's his way of trying to understand them through his existing understandings.

"...basically, we all have a higher self, a kind of main soul in the spiritual world, which contains all our aspects from previous and future lives.  This main soul always remains in the spiritual world, and when we incarnate only parts of this main soul are extracted, combined and formed into a new individual human soul.  This constellation of soul parts is unique and will only exist once in this form.  However, this human soul of an individual is permanently in contact with its main soul rather in the way of a radio link.  If one has lived one’s life as this unique person, all one’s soul parts will return to the main soul complete with one’s new experiences after death.  So, when I die one day as Oliver the soul aspects that made me up will merge again with my main soul.  There I am stored eternally as Oliver and will never incarnate again in this constellation.  In these circumstances no one need to fear that the soul of a loved one has already reincarnated and can no longer be encountered.  In a new incarnation new parts of my main soul would again be combined and a new individual would be formed.  This new individual soul would then also carry the experiences and memories of me (Oliver).”

In my experience, the "main" soul, as he puts it, isn't separate from our incarnate existence. There's no "extraction", "combining" or "forming" ~ there is a veil of forgetfulness, yes, dissociation, yes, but the incarnate aspect isn't somehow separated. It's just not aware of its root existence, due to the nature of perceiving through a physical form.

“. . . It is hard to understand this in our present human state when we all perceive ourselves so clearly as individuals on earth.  I imagine it in such a way that when we return to our main soul, we will become aware that as human beings we have actually only slipped into a role.  We will perceive ourselves as a whole main soul, but we can slip back into the respective roles of our lives at any time.”

The "main" soul is a superset of an incarnation, so of course it has all of the experiences and memories. The human incarnation is an aspect of it.

This description is also quite close to the system as explained in many readings by the noted spiritual channeler Ron Scolastico. It appears that this "the oversoul is what survives" theory is being confirmed by multiple psychic sources.

"Over-soul" doesn't feel quite right... it implies a separate existence from this one, when that's not really true. It only appear that way to us incarnates, who are unable to see the full picture, due to the veil of forgetfulness and the dissociation that comes with physical incarnation.

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, this scheme as described seems to teach that what ultimately survives physical death is a vast "oversoul" of some sort with also a vastly different personality, goals, and purposes than the just incarnated human personality which is unique to that physical life. It looks (to me at least) to essentially be another different being. The just incarnated human personality is temporary and only "survives" as memories in the oversoul, not as a sentient conscious human personality.

Yes, with that sort of description, it would imply that, but it feels like a very shallow picture. The human personality is not lost upon expanding back into whole soul upon death ~ there is merely a reawakening to everything you had forgotten. The incarnate self isn't somehow crushed and reabsorbed in a somehow cold, pitiless manner, as if it were just a tool being used and abused. That doesn't match my intuitions at all.

Rather, the incarnate self is a part of the soul itself, a part the soul is fully conscious of, though the incarnate self is not aware of that, so it can appear "cold" and "distant".

So apparently we can forget about having real personal "survival" and an afterlife. What will then "perceive itself as a whole main soul" just isn't the human personality. It isn't "you", it's somebody else that survives.

The human personality isn't lost ~ it becomes aware of everything that it forgotten before incarnation. The whole soul experiences the incarnation's existence in real time, as if there were no separation, as the whole soul is informed by all of these experiences at once. There is nothing to lose, as the whole soul is already going through everything we are... no, more, as the soul has full knowledge of all of the unconscious and subconscious stuff happening in our minds that we aren't aware of.

I can only point out in argument that this picture seems to conflict drastically with the empirical evidence of reams of NDE accounts of consciousness continued for a time in an expanded but still human personality form after (tempory) death, and also a considerable number of verified mediumistic communications with apparently surviving deceased human personalities. It's not immediately clear how to reconcile these kinds of paranormal data with the "what survives is the oversoul" doctrine, other than to introduce several collateral hypotheses which would invoke the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony. 

This issue appears to be unresolvable at present.

The whole doctrine is very unsatisfying with its distant, cold and impersonal representation. It paints a very bleak picture, frankly. One that doesn't make sense in the light of my reported experiences at all. The soul isn't distant, cold or impersonal ~ it directly experiences everything its incarnation does.

Now that I think about it... I recall having encountered my higher self ~ both in a male sense and a female sense. The male sense was of a figure completely overshadowed by a most brilliant light, though I could sense a strong calmness to it, along with a solid, unyielding strength. The female sense was of a cosmos that was full to the brim of love and compassion and understanding, a knowing of everything I was going through.

The higher self appears like this because our dissociation from the whole makes it appear separate from us ~ we cannot comprehend it as a greater part of our existence, as we cannot recall it due to the veil of forgetfulness. The separation doesn't exist, except from our perspective. There is no separation for the soul ~ we are merely an incarnate aspect of it.

.......................................

....The human personality is not lost upon expanding back into whole soul upon death ~ there is merely a reawakening to everything you had forgotten. The incarnate self isn't somehow crushed and reabsorbed in a somehow cold, pitiless manner, as if it were just a tool being used and abused. That doesn't match my intuitions at all.

Rather, the incarnate self is a part of the soul itself, a part the soul is fully conscious of, though the incarnate self is not aware of that, so it can appear "cold" and "distant".

......................................

Everything you have written concerning the relationship of the human and the soul seems to me to at least indirectly imply a temporary real separation occuring during incarnated life. During physical life the human experiences a separate human personality existence, while at the same time the soul still exists as a separate sentient being with vastly expanded memory and wisdom and likes and dislikes, and experiences both itself and the human existence.

During that time both are definitely separate beings - one being with a stream of sentient consciousness consisting of a drastically limited different and "human" personality and memories and very different likes and dislikes, the other being with a vastly expanded memory of past existences, wisdom, and different likes and dislikes, experiencing the human as a very small part of itself. 

It also occurs to me that this model invokes the contentious old philosophical problem of understanding how one ultimate central consciousness (supposedly the one ground basic spiritual substance of existence) can simultaneously manifest and experience the vast number of apparently separate incarnate consciousnesses . This issue has been encountered in analyses and critiques of Idealism and Monism as philosophies of the mind-matter relationship, and I think the consensus of one debate at least was that it is impossible.

Contrary to this, it occurs to me that there is at least one empirical data point that conflicts with this - some cases of MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) seem to show that sometimes the dominant manifesting personality is at the same time being interfered with by one or more of the other personalities in an attempt to take over. Obviously, at that moment both personalities exist and manifest and have separate faculties of agency with (different) intentions and desires, though they are just parts of the one person.

I have always thought that one of the weak points about neuroscience's explanation of the mind is that let's say we take the location of fear in the brain - the amygdala. The problem immediately arises that fear is usually caused by something - say a tiger - but then that fear can be enhanced or abolished by other information - such as the fact that there is a shatterproof transparent screen between you and the tiger. But then maybe you notice that there is a tiny crack in the corner of the screen which seems to be expanding ..... etc.

In other words fear isn't an isolated entity, it is intimately bound to everything else. For me this casts doubt on the connectionist model of the brain. Thus by analogy, I am even less keen on the idea that the soul (or mind) can be carved up into portions that can be mixed and matched in this way.

I could more easily imagine a soul that would depend on a number of parameters which might be tweaked between successive lives.

Has anyone here read the Beyond Matter book, and have you any comments?

David

I have always thought that one of the weak points about neuroscience's explanation of the mind is that let's say we take the location of fear in the brain - the amygdala. The problem immediately arises that fear is usually caused by something - say a tiger - but then that fear can be enhanced or abolished by other information - such as the fact that there is a shatterproof transparent screen between you and the tiger. But then maybe you notice that there is a tiny crack in the corner of the screen which seems to be expanding ..... etc.

In other words fear isn't an isolated entity, it is intimately bound to everything else. For me this casts doubt on the connectionist model of the brain. Thus by analogy, I am even less keen on the idea that the soul (or mind) can be carved up into portions that can be mixed and matched in this way.

I could more easily imagine a soul that would depend on a number of parameters which might be tweaked between successive lives.

Has anyone here read the Beyond Matter book, and have you any comments?

David

Concerning the book, I just was intrigued by a few excerpts I encountered in another forum and realized the clear parallels. 
It would seem according to some spiritual teachings that during physical life a sentient conscious being (the unique vastly complex Soul) having a unitary stream of consciousness becomes two simultaneously existing separate sentient beings (the temporary human and the vastly greater and different Soul). But this splitting of a single unique sentient conscious being with a unitary sense of self and agency into two or more separate and simultaneous streams of consciousness would seem to be impossible because it would violate the unitary ultimate nature of a conscious sentient being.

There is some data relevant to this issue. It seems that several different psychic sources have furnished accounts of the scheme that parallel to some extent the "Soul is split into two simultaneously existing beings" concept. And some people experience spontaneous moments of seeming contact by what they sense to be their "higher selves", which generally are deliberately communicating something important. We need to take these data pointing to a real split seriously.

In your conception, during physical life there would still be just one single conscious sentient being - the soul - but one that has been drastically throttled down and limited.  This model could be interpreted in such a way as to confirm the "what survives is an extremely different entity - the Soul" model.

It occurs to me that the picture just might not be so bleak, because there might be another much better interpretation. A valid analogy might be made with the drastic differences between my old adult self molded by countless experiences and situations, and my much earlier self at age 7 for instance. To me, there seem to be such huge differences between these two beings that they could almost be denoted separate unique beings. My earlier self was so much simpler and less knowledgable and accomplished that he seems almost like a different being. Yet I also know that there are deep continuities between these two beings. In some sense we really are one. This might be truly analogous in some ways to the Soul/human issue.

It occurs to me that the picture just might not be so bleak, because there might be another much better interpretation. A valid analogy might be made with the drastic differences between my old adult self molded by countless experiences and situations, and my much earlier self at age 7 for instance. To me, there seem to be such huge differences between these two beings that they could almost be denoted separate unique beings. My earlier self was so much simpler and less knowledgable and accomplished that he seems almost like a different being. Yet I also know that there are deep continuities between these two beings. In some sense we really are one. This might be truly analogous in some ways to the Soul/human issue.

Right, but of course, you can still understand yourself back when you were 7 - you have simply matured. I think a good analogy is with the way children start to recognise the concept of sex at about age 13. Before then the world seemed to make sense without sex. I remember watching shows in which the action man took time off killing baddies to mess about with a woman (nothing pornographic - this was the 1960's). My brother and I would groan and just wait for him to get back to important matters - LOL!

That is an illustration of just how blind children (and by extension, the rest of us) can be to phenomena that they are just not ready for.

I guess these over-souls (or whatever) can't really be understood until we go through the next transition.

David

I agree the actual knowledge of our consciousness is very scant, though I would also agree with Brian that perhaps it would be best to spin off a new thread to discuss the more speculative aspects relating to incarnating souls.

I would just comment that there really is a fair amount of knowledge about what consciousness is not. Where the problem mostly lies is with the question of what it really is.