What is a "soul"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
From my philosophical perspective - all of that and more, yes.

Your soul is your DNA, perhaps?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your soul is your DNA, perhaps?

It is one aspect of it, yes. But there is more to the soul.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT: Actually, I think Metamorphosis's position is that one cannot say anything about the soul because it is outside the physical and intellectual realms.

I think he is correct, with the proviso that he is talking about (for want of a better word) enlightenment, samadhi, which is simply not something that can be signposted.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It is one aspect of it, yes. But there is more to the soul.

What is that?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What is that?

That is something I have yet to sort out. For the moment, my position would be to take up what you said earlier about my manners being an aspect of the soul. Clearly my personality is not solely the product of my DNA.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That is something I have yet to sort out. For the moment, my position would be to take up what you said earlier about my manners being an aspect of the soul. Clearly my personality is not solely the product of my DNA.

So far your attempts to describe your soul are incoherent. I can hardly blame you.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So far your attempts to describe your soul are incoherent. I can hardly blame you.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. 🙂

I have yet to sort out the bit about whether accidents (in the classical metaphysical sense) are part of the substance of a being. I believe they aren't, but that would raise the question of why the soul should not remain unchanged from conception (I believe we have souls from the moment of conception) to death.

EDIT: I think the solution lies in the difference between accidental beings and alterations to substance due to accidents (in the common sense).

In any case, if you think I'm being incoherent, please point out where and why. Also, if you'd like to rephrase/restate your queries, I'll give it a go.

In answer to your question - there is more to a person than simply his DNA. For instance, identical twins have the same DNA "signature" - but are two separate persons.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
From my philosophical perspective - all of that and more, yes.

EDIT: Yes, you can't describe Chartres Cathedral very well to a person who has never seen a building. But you can describe it well enough for him to recognise it when he gets there. You can't describe the experience of being there perfectly even to Christopher Wren himself (the person ...[text shortened]... e hasn't been there. But that doesn't mean you cannot provide a sufficient description.

Just because your map to St. Paul's looks different from mine does not mean we are not both using maps.

And—as your St. Paul’s, Chartres, Eiffel tower analogies all point up (as well as your wonderfully homely “taste-of-chicken example)—the map is not the territory. The map may be helpful for (a) helping you to find the territory (and perhaps finding your way back to it again), and (b) navigating in it until you are familiar enough to go about on your own. Some maps are more helpful than others; some of this may be objective (e.g., simple accuracy), and some may be subjective (e.g., a map that indicates different terrain simply by coloration may not be too helpful for me if I’m color-blind).

Three points: (1) To see (experience) St. Paul’s once you’re there, you have to put down the map, at least for awhile.

(2) And, more importantly, one does not judge the territory, the actuality (e.g., and find it wanting) by how well the actuality fits the map. But a lot of people (all of us?) seem to have a tendency, at least at some point, to do this—life as I have lived it does not conform to the expectations plotted on all of the social, cultural, religious, etc, maps that were given to me, taught to me, when I was young—nor some of those that I acquired along the way, even some “maps” that were quite precious to me. I have spent a great deal of foolish time trying to “live in the map,” so to speak.

Similarly, one can spend one’s entire life searching for better and better ones (“maybe this one is it” ); I have also done a lot of that.

(3) Some people, seeing the territory and noticing the shortcomings of their maps, judge their maps harshly—forgetting that those maps are what helped to bring them here.

Yes, you can't describe Chartres Cathedral very well to a person who has never seen a building. But you can describe it well enough for him to recognise it when he gets there.

I’m not convinced of this; in any event, it would be a very difficult job finding workable reference points. On the other hand, it also seems that, without some preparation via descriptive maps, simply dropping that person into Chartres, in the middle of a whole world beyond his imagining, could be dangerous. Every religious tradition probably has stories of people who have “freaked out” when suddenly confronted by a (“spiritual” ) reality they were not prepared for.

Another analogy that comes to mind here is sexual intimacy—and our efforts to prepare prepubescent teens, for example, so they won’t be too freaked out by the experience. And yet again, after years of sexual experience, the overwhelming (literally) intimacy discovered with my second wife—after the age of 40—was something that none of my maps or prior experience prepared me for. To try to express it—my words become “as straw.” I would have to try for some grandiose poetic phrase, like the Zen “mind and body dropped away,” referring to satori—but even that is straw…. And I am not being “romantic” here; just trying to find a more powerful metaphor than Chartres (even). Forgive the personal example.

You can't describe the experience of being there perfectly even to Christopher Wren himself (the person who designed St. Paul's) if he hasn't been there. But that doesn't mean you cannot provide a sufficient description.

Again, of course, the question is: “Sufficient for what?” But I think that ground has already been covered in this thread, so I’ll let it go.

I must say that the “dialectic” give and take of this discussion has been incredibly helpful for me. Thanks to all.

Aside re Aquinas:
Aquinas had a mystical experience while celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273, after which he stopped writing, leaving his great work, the Summa Theologica, unfinished. When asked why he had stopped writing, Aquinas replied, "I cannot go on...All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me." He died on March 7, 1274. (Wikipedia, although I have read of this many times.)

This is how I sometimes feel in trying to describe the experiences of my life: as if I am simply drawing straw maps. My words here, when I re-read them, seem like “straw.”

Aquinas, perhaps, judged the maps he left for others too harshly; but perhaps he was also offering a warning about clinging to our maps, and assigning them more value than they have.

One more word about the maps analogy—

“Maps” can have a rich aesthetic value. Imagine one of those beautiful old parchment navigator’s maps, with the lovely scrolling and pictures of sea-monsters; and which may be absolutely useless as a navigation tool. But—imagine gazing at it as it hangs on your wall. It could even be a contemplative experience, like contemplating Rublev’s Trinity, or a Hindu mandala, or a Navajo sand painting.

I think it is an error to either dismiss the power of such aesthetics, on the one hand, or to ask too much of it on the other. I cannot assign a “meaning” to Pachelbel’s Canon, say, or a Hasidic niggun—but they can bring me into awareness of that quality of being that Alan Watts described wryly as “the which than which there can no whicher” (and which I described as a fullness of presence) much quicker than just about anything I can think of. I have few “defenses” against the impact of such music.

Lucifer wrote...

One, ATY's question is like asking "What does St. Paul's Cathedral look like". My answer is "St. Paul's is a large, 18th century cathedral, shaped like a cross, with a huge dome etc.". Your answer seems to be "I can't relate to you the full sensory and emotional experience of being in St. Paul's, so I'm not going to tell you anything about it; instead, I'll give you the directions to get there".

I realize this is but an analogy, but for the sake of clarity I am certainly not speaking about "sensory" or "emotional" experiences.

Which is very nice, but not what ATY asked for.

For the record, let me repeat my opening post in this thread, which was in response to the question "what is the soul?" I wrote...

------

"I think that a key point here is that any intellectual answer you get to this question is going to simply be someone's belief system, most typically in the form of a scripture, or in the form of defence of scientific materialism (there is no soul, etc.).

Following that approach we then may become a collector of beliefs, and might end up selecting one that appeals to us the most.

But there is another possibility -- direct inquiry into the matter. Not mere surveying of beliefs or opinions, but directly looking within to see what our own consciousness actually is.

This process of self-inquiry lies at the heart of the perennial philosophy and the great wisdom traditions, from Socrates to Lao Tzu to Ramana Maharshi. You can find it buried within many religious scriptures as well. Through it, you arrive at an experiential understanding of what "soul" is for you, and what spiritual teachers have been saying about it for centuries.

A man once approached an enlightened sage in India, and asked him, "how do I know you are enlightened?" to which the sage replied, "you can't know. First become enlightened, and then you will see for yourself what is true and what is not." "

-------

You may note my lines -- I think that a key point here..." and "But there is another possibility.".

Clearly, I'm adding a supplement to the discussion. The information can be taken in any way. It is not intended as the "sole proper" response to the question "what is the soul". It's a line of inquiry that is available for those interested in looking in that direction.

Now, I don't deny that a description of St. Paul's is not the same as being in St. Paul's;

Yes. And this is an important point.

or that a description can never fully relate the experience of being in St. Paul's.

I would say that no description can convey an experience, save via symbols (language), thus making it once-removed.

This word "description" is interesting -- it is sourced in the words "scribe" (write) and "de" ( from the Latin "de", meaning "down", "away", "off", "aside" ). So to "de-scribe" something is essentially to distance ourselves from the event or experience via language.

Note that I'm not assigning fault to such a process, simply distinguishing it from direct experience unfiltered by language.

However, I do not take the other extreme position of offering no description at all.

I may not offer descriptions of "soul" (or God/spirit), but that does not mean that I'm not using langauge or concepts, obviously. My posts alone in this thread, which have been long enough, are testament to that.

The idea that "soul" cannot be known via concept/intellect does not mean that concepts and intellect are useless in this quest. The very Zen parable of "fingers pointing to the Moon" is clearly using lanaguage and concepts right there. The crucial difference is that the language and concepts are understood to not hold the answer. Moreover, it is uncompromisingly understood that there will be no true knowledge of this realm (the soul) via concepts, and that furthermore, we have to be vigilant for the very real possibility that language and concepts are mistaken for the actual event/experience of soul-knowledge. To do so results in all sorts of problems, the very same ones that have plagued religious sectarianism for centuries. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that religious organizations are themselves built by men who have not properly penetrated the transpersonal (transrational) realm. The "priesthoods" of most religions seem to be comprised of men who pass on intellectual models of God/soul/spirit, which then are bought wholesale by large segments of societies, many of whom are then all too eager to denounce other intellectual models and maps of "ultimate truths".

If a person is to recognise St. Paul's when he finally visits it, he has to have some idea of what it looks like a priori. This is not about category errors or being attached to words - it's plain common sense.

You might also consider the very possibility that a person asking about St. Paul's already has sufficient a priori knowledge of it -- by virtue of the fact that he has asked about it.

And this is where analogies are usually clumsy, because for "St. Paul's Cathedral", merely asking about it may not be enough. One may indeed need an actual map to get there. But for the "soul", there is no physical roadmap -- no intermediary agent, apart from one's own sincerity of intention and curiosity to know it. So if someone asks about it, I take that as sufficient curiosity right there, and will not hesitate to share what I believe to be the best approach to the matter.

Alternatively -- if you do believe that roadmaps are required for the soul -- how, then, are you to know with certainty that my own responses to that individual might not be a valid roadmap for him? There is no way to know that with certainty. Sometimes information yields fruits only long after it's been heard.

...I view man as a soul that has been actualised in a body, in matter. The soul is like the "blueprint" of the person. Spirit is the class of being the soul belongs to. Mind/Intellect is a power or mode of operation of the soul. So is free will, for instance.

Just as you see something of the blueprint of a building every time you look at the building, you see and know something about the soul of a person every time you see or meet him/her. You don't comprehend the whole of his/her soul, of course, but nor are you completely ignorant of it.

Because our basic philosophical assumptions are so different, we're not even talking about the same "soul".

Okay, but you are still in the realm of cartography here. You are trying to contrast your map to mine. But in the realm of "soul", I have no map.

You see, I'm not actually talking about "soul". I am only pointing to the possibility of knowing it. I'm not describing it. Because the very realm I'm pointing to is beyond conception, beyond description.

Yes, the mind can make a go at conceptualizing it, at describing it, as the mind can with anything. But once one conceptualizes it, one is already removed from the direct knowledge.

I could use many words to describe "soul" -- awareness of oneness with God, felt tacit connectedness with All, direct experience of the perfection of one's self as an individualized expression of the Infinite, pure silence, bliss, love, and so forth -- but these remain but symbols of what is. And yes, your symbols will be different. But that doesn't matter. What matters is penetrating the veil between the conceptualizing of mind, and the direct knowing of experiential spiritual knowledge -- beyond thought, beyond description, beyond lable.

Metamorphosis --

Have you ever meditated, or prayed contemplatively, LH? Ever known a silent mind?

Lucifershammer --

What would you say if I said "yes"? If I said "no"?

Does that matter?

Why not just answer the question?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It is one aspect of it, yes. But there is more to the soul.

How did you get to this definition?.........😕

Originally posted by vistesd
One more word about the maps analogy—

“Maps” can have a rich aesthetic value. Imagine one of those beautiful old parchment navigator’s maps, with the lovely scrolling and pictures of sea-monsters; and which may be absolutely useless as a navigation tool. But—imagine gazing at it as it hangs on your wall. It could even be a contemplative experience, li ...[text shortened]... han just about anything I can think of. I have few “defenses” against the impact of such music.

Well put, indeed.

And now, a finger pointing toward the Moon...the great Zen master Hakuin Ekaku's famous verses...

"From the beginning, all beings are Buddha;
Like water and ice, without water no ice,
Outside us, no Buddhas.
How near the Truth, yet how far we seek!
Like one in water crying, "I thirst",
Like the son of a rich man
Wandering poor on this earth,
We endlessly circle the Six Worlds.
From dark path to dark path
We've wandered in darkness.
How can we be free from the wheel of Samsara?

The Perfection of freedom is Zazen-Samadhi,
Beyond exaltation, beyond all our praises,
The pure Mahayana.
Observing the precepts, repentance and giving,
The countless good deeds, and the Way of Right Living,
All flow from this Zen.
Even one meditation extinguishes evil;
It purifies karma, dissolving obstruction.
Then where are the dark paths to lead us astray?
The Pure Lotus Land is not far away.
Hearing this Truth, heart humble and grateful,
To praise and embrace it, to practice its wisdom,
Brings unending blessings, brings mountains of merit.

But if we turn directly, and prove our True Nature,
That true Self is no-self,
Our own Self is no-self,
We stand beyond ego and past clever words.
Then the gate to the oneness of cause-and-effect is thrown open:
Not two, and not three,
Straight ahead runs the Way.
Now our form is no-form,
So in coming and going we never leave home.
Now our thought is no-thought,
So our dancing and songs are the voice of the Dharma.
How bright and transparent the moonlight of Wisdom!
What is there outside us, what is there we lack?
Nirvana is openly shown to our eyes.
This earth where we stand is the Pure Lotus Land,
And this very body, the body of Buddha!"

And now, a finger pointing toward the Moon...the great Zen master Hakuin Ekaku's famous verses...

Thanks for that; I've printed it out.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In any case, if you think I'm being incoherent, please point out where and why. Also, if you'd like to rephrase/restate your queries, I'll give it a go.

I mean "incoherent" in the sense that you haven't produced a precise definition of a soul (in my view an impossibility), not in the sense that you're babbling.

I'm asking you to define a soul in the same way that you might define Chartres cathedral--in concrete recognisable terms...none of this nebulous talk of "essences" (alchemy?)--unless you can describe the "essence" of anything whatsover, which, according to Pope Benedict's beloved old Kant, you cannot.