What is a "soul"?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Thank you for your perspective, cb.


So, as a non-believer, do you believe I have no spirit?

Correct. When or "if" you are "born again" you receive the gift of holy spirit.
This is the claim of the bible.

1 Cor 2:14
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(NKJ)

Now does this mean God can't hear your prayer..absolutely not!

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Dolphins must have souls then, right? And the great apes
and Bonobos and chimps (they show cultural achievements) but
dogs, cats, caterpillars don't have souls?

Anything with "life".....trees too, plants, animals, people, etc.
Soul is one english translation, if you have a greek lexicon, or even a concordance like Strongs, you can easily see all the words in the bible translated from "nephesh".

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Wait, so are "soul" and "spiritual nature" related? Does this mean "soul" and "spirit" are related?

You're still looking for intellectual answers and explanations. You can get those if you want, but they aren't going to satisfy you. They'll simply be more concepts and labels.

You say no one can help me understand this matter, wanted to "avoid the question", I would not have bothered posting to you at all, I assure you.

An analogy that might help -- you want to go to certain country. Someone gives you a map. You can study the map, and memorize names, places, etc. But none of that can replace the actual experience of traveling to the country.

No, but someone can tell me that the country exists and that the map represents real terrain features in the country. It would be silly to tell someone that they have to go to France and live there in order to know what France is. Likewise with the menu. You don't need to eat the food to know what it is.

So, by analogy, I may need to meditate or whatever to develop an emotional attachment to "the soul", and I might learn a lot about it by doing so, but I shouldn't need to do all this just to know what a soul is. I've never been to France and I've never eaten monkey, but that doesn't mean I don't know what these things are. I can also tell you what they are.

A good example is in the question "Who am I?"

I am AThousandYoung (of course I have a real name). What am I? I am a human male. That wasn't hard.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]An analogy that might help -- you want to go to certain country. Someone gives you a map. You can study the map, and memorize names, places, etc. But none of that can replace the actual experience of traveling to the country.

No, but someone can tell me that the country exists and that the map represents real terrain features in the c ...[text shortened]... ThousandYoung (of course I have a real name). What am I? I am a human male. That wasn't hard.[/b]

No, but someone can tell me that the country exists and that the map represents real terrain features in the country. It would be silly to tell someone that they have to go to France and live there in order to know what France is.

To know France intellectually, you can read about France, sure. But to know France experientially, you are going to have to go to France yourself. And even better then just touring the country, would be to make a long stay there. Even better than that, would be to live there and learn the language. And so on.

I've been stressing the experiential part with you in these analogies, because my own understanding of "soul" ("spirit", "God", etc.) is that it really only make sense from the experiential angle. An intellectual view of "soul" is basically empty. It's like a postcard of Paris. It won't satisfy if you really want to know Paris. You'll soon lose the postcard or forget about it.

Likewise with the menu. You don't need to eat the food to know what it is.

Food is meant to be eaten. If you want to "know" what curry chicken tastes like, you most certainly are going to have to eat it. Otherwise your knowledge of curry chicken remains second hand, borrowed. It is not really yours. It'll be a fantasy curry chicken.

Yes you can write about food, talk about food, even copy recipes, etc. This would be the intellectual approach to food. The experiential approach however will only be known by eating the food. Much how the experiential approach to love is only known by loving, or the experiential approach to sex is only known by having sex, or the experiential approach to baseball is only known via playing baseball.

So, by analogy, I may need to meditate or whatever to develop an emotional attachment to "the soul", and I might learn a lot about it by doing so, but I shouldn't need to do all this just to know what a soul is.

All depends on the angle of approach. Someone can tell you what their idea of the soul is -- "for me, the soul is pure energy, or my higher self, or God's light reflected in my higher mind, or my Jungian individuated unconscious, blah blah blah" -- but in the end, what good are such descriptions going to do you? You might nod your head, and say, "ah, so that's what the soul is" -- and then after thinking a bit, you might add, "yeah, but wait! You're just telling me what the soul is for you! How do I know what you say is true?" And, your questions at that point would indeed be perfectly valid. Not only that, it's a totally appropriate question.

The spiritual path really consists of two levels -- the mind level, and the practice level. The mind level is study of writings, memorizing concepts, learning the various languages, and so on. But this level can never give you real knowledge of what soul is. It can only give you the various highly subjective viewpoints of spiritual seekers. That doesn't mean that these viewpoints are "wrong" for these seekers, but they are their viewpoints, not yours.

The second level is "practice". For some seekers, that practice is prayer. For others, it's service of some kind. For others, meditation, or contemplation. Some even use visualization or mantras, or affirmations, and so on. There are many forms of practice. But what all hold in common is that they involve a movement into the crucially important level of direct experience. They lead to the experiential. God, soul, spirit, etc., are subjective realities are basically meaningless without an experiential contact with them.

A good example is in the question "Who am I?"

I am AThousandYoung (of course I have a real name).

Are you your name? If you changed your name tomorrow -- say, from John Smith to Fred Jones -- would you in fact cease to exist?

Clearly not. In fact, very little would change about you at all, if anything. So from that it's not hard to conclude that you are clearly something much more than just a name. That would seem obvious, yes?

What am I? I am a human male. That wasn't hard.

"Human male" remains simply part of a conceptual designation -- in this case, it describes your species and your gender. But clearly there is much more to you than just your species and gender.

In Zen Buddhism -- to use one example of experiential practice -- a practitioner will tackle what is called a "koan". A koan is a rationally insoluble problem, like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" or "show me your face before your parents were born". On the surface these seem like absurd questions, and indeed they are from the intellectual perspective -- perhaps as absurd as "what is the soul?" -- but when concentrated on eventually the mind "shifts gears" and opens up to a deeper, fuller understanding of reality. The idea there is that the intellect tends to interfere with our capacity to experience our lives to the fullest, as it is constantly interpreting things and projecting ideas onto the world, and other people.

Intellect is very useful to certain areas of investigation, especially science, but it tends to break down in terms of its usefulness when it comes to knowing transcendent realities like God, spirit, or soul. There, practice -- experiential work -- is needed. And there are many paths to look at there -- Christian prayer/contemplation (see Thomas Merton, Meister Eckhart, etc.), Buddhist meditation (Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh), Hindu metaphysics (Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Sri Aurobindo), Sufi mysticism (Kabir, Rumi), Native Indian mysticism (Black Elk, Sun Bear, etc), and many other approaches. All of these facilitate experiential progress on one's spiritual path and thus can help one begin to "know" what soul/spirit/God/enlightenment is.

I'm not making a sectarian argument here, of course. Most people have their favourite religion (or none at all). My point has been to define the difference between study and practice, between intellect and experience in the spiritual realm, because it's crucial to understand the difference between the two when it comes to matters like the idea of "soul" and what it is.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b]No, but someone can tell me that the country exists and that the map represents real terrain features in the country. It would be silly to tell someone that they have to go to France and live there in order to know what France is.

To know France intellectually, you can read about France, sure. But to know France experientially, you ar ...[text shortened]... he difference between the two when it comes to matters like the idea of "soul" and what it is.[/b]

If someone asked you "what is a jungle" would you insist they spend thirty years of their life living in one? How would they know what to live in if they didn't know what a jungle was?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If someone asked you "what is a jungle" would you insist they spend thirty years of their life living in one? How would they know what to live in if they didn't know what a jungle was?

You didn't ask about a "jungle". You asked about the soul. Big difference.

A jungle has an objective, material existence. Plenty of them in Africa, South America, etc. If you want to know a jungle, the ideal way would indeed be to visit one. If not, content yourself with a nice picture book, and yes, you will know something about it, even if only via someone else's words or camera.

As for the soul, however, there are no picture books. No postcards. No travel brochures. No nothing -- except scriptures and other people's beliefs.

Ever seen a soul? Weighed one, measured one? Has anyone ever demonstrably proved that the soul exists?

I don't believe that any intellectual definition of the soul I or anyone else can give you will ever truly satisfy you. And nor should it, when it comes to the soul. A jungle, maybe. France, perhaps. The soul, no.

The other option is to explore the matter contemplatively, meditatively, experientially. But I've already covered that point, and at this point will just begin repeating myself. Good luck on your quest.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
You didn't ask about a "jungle". You asked about the soul. Big difference.

A jungle has an objective, material existence. Plenty of them in Africa, South America, etc. If you want to know a jungle, the ideal way would indeed be to visit one. If not, content yourself with a nice picture book, and yes, you will know something about it, even if only ...[text shortened]... covered that point, and at this point will just begin repeating myself. Good luck on your quest.

The thing I am getting at is that the word "soul", while it sounds deep and profound, doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's not that there is no such thing as a soul; the word doesn't even signify something that may or may not exist. At least, not as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Dolphins must have souls then, right? And the great apes
and Bonobos and chimps (they show cultural achievements) but
dogs, cats, caterpillars don't have souls?

They have life no doubt about it, but that does not mean they have
what we do. If you read the creation story you will see that our lives
were not made the same way theirs were, we are not animals as far
as our spirit or soul are concern. God spoke and the planets and
animals were created, with us there was a lot more to it, by design.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I hear a lot of talk about the "soul" but I still don't understand what it is supposed to be. Is it distinct from the "spirit", whatever that is, and the mind? Are spirit and mind distinct from one another?

In classical philosophy, the "soul" is the form or essence of the human being. It is what makes you who/what you are. More simply, a human being is a soul that exists.

The human being has both material and immaterial aspects. The material aspect is the body; the immaterial aspect is the "spirit".

When "mind" is used to refer to the immaterial aspect of the human being, it is the same as "spirit". If used to refer to the intellectual/rational aspect, it is a part of the spirit.

Hope that helps.

LH

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No, Here is where I part company from traditional Christianity....
The bible nowhere claims "to live after death".
According to my understanding of the bible, when a person dies, and this applies to christian or non Christian, his breath life(soul) dies.
It has nothing to do with spirit. Spirit is difficult to define. It is not a conscience, nor th ...[text shortened]... hus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
(NKJ)

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No, Here is where I part company from traditional Christianity....

Not really 😉 Read Aquinas on the soul some time...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think you're avoiding the question by using lots of profound sounding words and phrases that may be meaningless. You may not be aware that you are doing this, but you are.

🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
...

As I understand it, as used in Heb 4:12 and other place ( "dividing soul and spirit, join and marrow" ) - soul and spirit mean your spirit, and it's double form is a literary tool to show emphasis (they did not have italics ). And the same for bone and marrow - it means the core of the body. The verse is say the the Word is like a sword with the power to separate the soul from the body. The phrasing emphases how tightly bound the soul and body are.

A similar literary tool is used with phrases like "love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul." This repetition does not mean that these are three separate things, but all the same in essence. Notice also that in the last part of the Heb 4:12 - the heart has thoughts and attitudes. The heart thinks and has motives and attitudes. The heart is the mind.

The New Testament frequently uses heart and mind, or spirit and mind, or some combination because heart, mind, soul, and spirit are all the same - and they are best understood as the thinking mind with it's thoughts, reasonings, and motives.

Your soul is not something separate from you, it is you in essence - it is your mind.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]No, Here is where I part company from traditional Christianity....

Not really 😉 Read Aquinas on the soul some time...[/b]

Who?

Originally posted by Coletti
As I understand it, as used in Heb 4:12 and other place ( "dividing soul and spirit, join and marrow" ) - soul and spirit mean your spirit, and it's double form is a literary tool to show emphasis (they did not have italics ). And the same for bone and marrow - it means the core of the body. The verse is say the the Word is like a sword with the ...[text shortened]... ives.

Your soul is not something separate from you, it is you in essence - it is your mind.

That is extremely clear. Thank you Coletti 🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Who?

St. Thomas Aquinas.