Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Sighclone » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:45 am

I believe the glaring absence of discussion of the individual soul in nondual circles is significant. To discard the possibility of the continuation of an individual identity after death is to toss out all NDE reports, all medium reports, all of Michael Newton's research on "life between lives" past life regressions, OBE's, Buddhism, etc. Thousands of books, multiple traditions. This is an Eckhart Tolle forum by name, and he has stated that some "egoic entity" survives death (it was a response to a questioner on Eckhart.tv. who saw the faces of deceased people.) That said, many in the nondual community dismiss the concept of a personal soul. (If there is no personal self, how can there be an individual soul??) Some compelling medium reports have me on the fence...mind-reading siddhi's notwithstanding...

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by EnterZenFromThere » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:47 pm

This is a very interesting read. I've got so many points I'd like to make it's difficult to know where to start. I'll start from my own experience and see what happens...

I have fairly regular OBEs. From these I can say that, for me at least, individuality exists beyond the human body. If anything, my non-physical individuality actually created the biology of my physical body - my astral/mental body created my physical body in it's own image - I Am That I Am. It is like the Sun - directing matter to conform to it's greater being through it's relatively massive gravity.

As I'm unable to presently recall any of my direct death experiences I am unsure whether this sense of individuality would continue beyond a complete death experience, but I do have some experiences beyond the astral/mental level of reality that shed light on this possibility.

I've gone to a place that seems to fit what some traditions refer to as the Buddhic plane. A realm of existence where all is one - an amorphous radiance of bliss. Within this reality even, my sense of self - my I Am - my individuality - remained. A stripped back individuality. An individuality without the clothes of my humanity, without the skin of my astral self, but, none-the-less, my very own individuality.

Self is far more versatile than many within the spiritual community I see posting here are aware of. I've had experiences where I feel my Astral Self being pulled from my Physical Self by my Celestial Self. I was simultaneously my human self within my body, AND my astral self being pulled from my body AND my celestial self guiding my astral self from my physical self. This experience probably sounds quite confusing - but it wasn't at all. I just was all three - no questions asked. I felt my body like dead wood, I felt an enormous surge of energy vortexing through me, I heard a booming voice - my own voice - from all around me saying in an incredibly loud but also very gentle way saying "you're leaving you're body - I'm guiding you out" - I heard it as separate from me, but was also aware that it was me who was saying it - simultaneously separate and inseparate - individual but connected - diverse and harmonious. I gave information back to my celestial self "that's good you using my voice, keep doing that" as I [my astral self] focused on relaxing enough to allow myself to leave my physical body. I left my physical body and was almost blind, though my celestial self pointed through the cracks in my vision that reality was different - vibrant and filled with varied individual beings. She [my celestial self often appears to me as a She, though not always] guided me to another place where she cleared my vision and taught me about reality through direct practical lessons [e.g. I wondered how reality could exist as all possible potentials at once and she showed me how to become a network of multiple simultaneous entities].

The specifics of the lessons I'm taught in the higher realities isn't particularly relevant here. I write this to demonstrate what happens to me when I leave my physical body and how my identity remains and alters as I interact with different aspects of myself.

If you've never left your body I can appreciate why you may perceive reality as more limited than I write here. But it's worth remembering that infinite is a HUGE word! Human biology is not the peak of spiritual advancement. It is an amoeba next to the higher beings that give life to it. A human life is a cell within the mental body which is a cell within the celestial body. My celestial self is existing primarily beyond the limitations of matter, space and time. However, through me, it is experiencing the limitations of matter, space and time. But I am not the only human it is experiencing. It is simultaneously me, and other humans and non-human physical entities - within this time. However, it is also experiencing other humans and non-human physical entities at different points in time - in the past and in the future. It is receiving information from all of them simultaneously (to the degree they are connected with it) that allows it to guide each of it's lesser forms relative to the information that comes into it. This might be hard to interpret when living within a time bound reality - I can draw diagrams that would make it easier to understand but I'm unsure how I would upload them into this post.

Finally, the word 'Soul' is an interesting one for me. It implies a sort of end point of individuality - like the Soul is the highest vibrational level of individualised being. However, I'd say that is a mistake born of a lack of appreciation of fundamental unifying principles of reality. The human body is made of cells that are lesser realities that comparise the greater reality of the human body. The human experience is made of lesser senses that comparise the greater reality of the total human experience. The Soul level is often refered to as an end point - perhaps where all the individual bodies (physical, astral, celestial and beyond) unite in the same pattern. Then the Soul levels of all beings unite together to create the body of God. However, in my experience individuality continues through all levels of being that I have encountered. Therefore, we are all united within the I Am of God. Not in the sense that our individuality dissolves into it - but that we are LITERALLY the I Am of God. That's we ARE God's sense of individuality. More than this, God is not the end-point. Why would a fractal system of relative lesser and greater relationships suddenly and inexplicably come to an end? I do not believe it would. I believe there is a God-of-Gods that is a light so much greater than God that God appears like a blot of darkness next to it. That too is an individual experience that is connected and harmonised to relative degrees within the lesser realities that it has given birth to. That we are too this same I Am, which is an individualised experience of Being endlessly expanding and refining itself through vortices of separate and inseparate harmoniously diverse aspects of itself.

Obviously this is only my own subjective interpretation of my own unique life experience so may not be applicable to other people.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6723
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Webwanderer » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:06 pm

Zen, that is one fine post. Beautiful clarity. Reading it feels like a ride into the Greater Reality.

WW

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Enlightened2B » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:51 pm

Beautiful post Jack. I'm blown away by it. Nice post Andy as well.

In relevance to this topic....I'm reading a book called "History of God" from Guy Needler right now. It's a bit far out there, but there is a lot of similar information that Jack indicates above. Guy Needler is a channeler who, in his book, has conversations through channeling and going out of body with other 'entities' from this dimension and other dimensions by going up and down frequency and dimension wise. He discovers that Source itself, is not the only Source, but a source within an "Origin" and the Origin itself, is also a smaller fractal of sorts within an even greater Origin. And our individuality it seems, is most certainly, fractally on the same path as Source's individuality as something that we have free will with through all levels of reality and our individuality is intentionally created, just like our Source's individuality was intentionally created by its own Source (The Origin) and so on. Meaning, it seems that individuality is an ongoing fractal of sorts all the way down the chain to us, us being Energetic Beings who incarnate on this physical plane. This physical plane being a mere speck on the radar of the greater reality. It's pretty incredible to think about, because our human minds are so limited in these bodies, and intentionally limited of course. Yet, to think we can grasp the picture from studying the physical world or using our direct senses alone, is almost comical from the greater reality it seems.

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Enlightened2B » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:25 pm

Here's an excerpt from the book I'm reading "History of God' which contradicts a lot of what I previously thought, including the notion of 'dissolving our individuality':
Guy Needler: What would happen to the other entities like me, for instance, if the Source Entity that controls our universe decided it had either completed its job or it was so far off track that it needed to be broken up and started again?

Source: You are part of It. All of you are, just as all of Them are part of Me. Once you are given sentience, you are considered separate. A return to the Source Entity is not something that is enforced upon a sentient being. It is something that the being either strives to achieve or believes that it is happy in its singularity. Everything is down to free will. However, once you return to Source, you are not stuck there. You can break away and experience whatever you want to experience on your own at any time. You do not lose your individuality by becoming part of the whole again. In essence, you never really had your own singularity because you are always part of something bigger. the Source Entity/Me, but by the Source Entity allowing you to have your own energy system, you achieve complete singularity by association with a local nucleus. This nucleus is the singularity which allows the energy that is you to stay together. So, you become your own entity whilst being part of a bigger entity.
This is a really beautiful process from my limited understanding. Ultimately, when we say there is Oneness, it means at the very basic level, we are all essentially the same energy, that same I AM at our core. That ultimately is our higher self. But, that higher self is ultimately an individual aspect of a greater self which is Source itself, which likely is an aspect of an even greater self (Nanci Danison noted this as well in one of her talks about more than one Source).

I see so much talk, in non-dual circles of 'there is no you'. And I'm realizing more and more and more how truly mis guided this non-dual perception is. There is most absolutely a YOU as I see it! And that you, is an individual, unique (not separate from the whole of course) perspective which has ABSOLUTE free will. Incredible.

User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by EnterZenFromThere » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:58 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:I see so much talk, in non-dual circles of 'there is no you'. And I'm realizing more and more and more how truly mis guided this non-dual perception is. There is most absolutely a YOU as I see it! And that you, is an individual, unique (not separate from the whole of course) perspective which has ABSOLUTE free will. Incredible.
This reminds me of a quote from The Matrix - the operator downloads Kung Fu into Neo's head and says "I think he likes it..!"

There's so much crap out there in spirituality land. Ceasing dependency on the crap of others is a huge leap in our development - like a tree in the jungle breaking through the canopy...finally...fresh air!

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Sighclone » Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:02 pm

What a delight to hear from Jack as his Voice matures! For additional validation which aligns almost exactly with Jack's fine post, check out kurtleland.com and his books. I have experienced (and believed) for quite a while that the paradox of awakening is a both-and paradox in which the individual self is retained, but now merges with the "Overself" if you will (that's Paul Brunton's word, by the way.) Leland's latest book, "The Multi-Dimensional Human" discusses not only the cosmology of astral projection, but has many techniques as well. It's sort of out of print and pricey right now, but will be coming back to press soon.

Jack - are you close to publishing anything yet??

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by EnterZenFromThere » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:16 am

Sighclone wrote: I have experienced (and believed) for quite a while that the paradox of awakening is a both-and paradox in which the individual self is retained
It always irritates me when you say this - 'paradox'. It isn't a paradox to me at all! It's the obvious mechanism by which reality makes far more sense.
Sighclone wrote:Jack - are you close to publishing anything yet??
I've been experimenting with some ideas but nothing concrete as yet. As soon as I feel I've got a section nailed a wave of new information comes in and blows the section to pieces..!

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3751
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by smiileyjen101 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:30 am

Rob x said:
The crux of the matter here is the incoherency of how continuation after the death of the organism would retain personal and human characteristics which can be clearly demonstrated to be attributes of human biology.
Human biology is a lump of biological 'matter' - merely energies combined in different densities and combinations that provide 'opportunity' - not assurance, not absolutism, but opportunity for the human experiences - in combination with other factors and within awareness, capacity and willingness in varying degrees.

Being born into human form does not in and of itself create the things we consider 'normal' in the human experience. Babies left in orphanages where human interaction and care was at basic (feed, bathe) minimum the babies did not via their 'imaginations' develop their sensory or biological capacities without stimulation and interaction. They lay in their cots rocking their bodies for comfort, eventually not even crying for attention where no attention would be brought by that action. The learning through cause & effect is different for all of us depending on our environment and interactions.

So one might firstly reconsider what is the basic biology of the human condition and what it is that turns opportunity into experience. ie: through interaction, not imagination. Then one might also reassess what 'personal and human characteristics' one is talking about outside of the biological framework.

Personality characteristics and perspectives for example are projections of interpretations of experience and interactions, within one's awareness, capacity and willingness to see all perspectives of it. eg: Rob's projects his 'personal' perspective, E2B's projects a different 'personal' perspective. If the stimuli is available to both - what determines the interpretation is not imagination, but opportunity (and levels of awareness, capacity & willingness) to step out of the 'personal' and see/ explore / consider the wider picture.

For me, I really don't care if at the end of life all is dark and silent and biological matter returning to the Earth, all awareness ceasing. For those who understand the magnitude of the 'opportunity' afforded in human life, that is the lovely fairy tale :wink:

Even then, that would mean that evidenced data able to be interpreted outside of the constraints of human created perceptions of time and space being linear and defined are within the capacity of (some) human experiences.

Whichever perspective you hold the truth does not change. Data is available that transcends time and space as we commonly accept it.

Yes, for those with clair abilities this data / information comes from interaction with those not or no longer in, human body life. And yes, for nde'rs this data / information comes from experiences not consistent with the 'supposed' range of human physical experience.

The measure of validity that can be tested is the accuracy of the data.

If/when that is confirmed then, and only then, will one start to consider how or why this is possible.

While personal experience of the interaction / experience is paramount in the sincerity of the sharing, the impact of the sharing can greatly affect (either open up (love) or shut down (fear)) secondary experiencers.

.....
In discussions with a friend on a similar topic yesterday she bemoaned that my capacity to accept 'facts' rather than the fairy tales and fear stories that we routinely shut out opportunities with, most accurately with the notion that I was suggesting that she (and whoever) was having an opportunity to face and accept personal responsibility for the choices one makes in whatever situation of interaction (within their personal awareness, capacity & willingness).... umm yep.

If one does not want to accept the truth, then one must continually argue against it, because without resistance the truth permeates everything.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Why the concept of a personal soul is incoherent

Post by Sighclone » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:17 am


Sighclone wrote:
I have experienced (and believed) for quite a while that the paradox of awakening is a both-and paradox in which the individual self is retained

It always irritates me when you say this - 'paradox'. It isn't a paradox to me at all! It's the obvious mechanism by which reality makes far more sense.
Dear Jack...please don't be irritated. We all speak from our level of understanding. For me, in my not-yet-fully integrated multi-dimensional self, the concept of a paradox is still a useful one. "to yield is to conquer" is a paradox, but true. "Vulnerability is courage" is a paradox, but true, "less is more" is a paradox but true, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is a paradox but true. The capacity to experience these paradoxes as an "obvious mechanism" is not a skill we all possess. The capacity to rest here is "negative capability" -- here is John Keats on that:
I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason
not all of us can do that either.

Be well and keep reporting as you see fit!

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

Post Reply