Soul, or No Soul? -2

I realize many of you may not consider this consider this question of souls relevant.  Likely you have already formed a belief about the subject.  But as our world moves forward and we ourselves try to build on each others wisdom and understanding, a question like this needs to be considered from different sides in order to bring people together.  While not everyone may agree that the world is moving forward, or that we can impact the overall emergence of a society where we can begin to agree on different aspects (by merging many beliefs as all fields offer us something), it is important for us to find peace within ourselves.

Certain belief systems say there is no soul, and others insist on it.  The debate will continue, as evidence for one sides beliefs is not considered evidence by other and vice versa.

But here is an introduction to discussion on souls and enlightenment.  This is an excerpt from a discussion which took place within a group seeking a more buddist enlightenment where the idea of the soul needs to be discarded before one can reach enlightenment.

One note about what follows.  In the first few lines, I talk about something I have discussed before on this site.  That is that words themselves will not help us overcome anything.  It is only when we internalize it that those words have impact.  But that that point they are no longer words, they are experience and action.  For instance we have all been to a seminar or watched something that really inspired us.  The words spoken rattled us, but we went home and nothing changed.  Unless we actually take those words and convert them to experience within our life, they are dust in the wind.  This is the idea that I am talking about in the first few lines of the following…

From my experience, words will not bring enlightenment. Even words within our mind create problems. Take a vow of silence, and after a period of time your thoughts will no longer be words and everything become clear because there are no symbols. You exist and percieve things for what they are, with no words, no labels…just “is”. It is experience…but as soon as we start to analyze that experience of the “is”, it is gone.

I could say that I am enlightened, but I am only enlightened some of the time. We all are enlightened at least some of the time, but we only realize it in hindsight (and some don’t realize at all, and so they search around for it, working towards something which is achieved by not working at all), because we look back and can say in that moment there was complete clarity with absolutely nothing else except being in that moment.

But symbols are fun, and I am not willing to give them up at all times. And so I continually move between clarity and being absorbed in thoughts, words, debate, etc. And why do I think symbols and all this garble that goes on in this world, illusion or not, soul or not, God or not, is fun?

Because my idea of the soul is that it is an observer within us. Here is what I mean. If I have a thought, any thought, let’s just say it is “I like this group.” The thought was created by the mind, but that thought is also observed. So far science has not found that “observer” within the mind. A thought is a thought, but how is that thought brought to awareness? The thought itself is not awareness, because the thought is the object of awareness.

The typical response to this might be “You are having fun playing in the illusion. I would invite you to go beyond the idea of soul or even observer. What if the observer was no more than thought watching thought?”

But what purpose would that serve dropping the idea of an observer? I view the rebuttal as the same point I am making.  When I am thinking, I can not percieve with complete clarity anyway. Can anyone of us? Because the thought does not allow for us to simple be completely in the experience of the moment. The thought is also being experienced at the same time.

So if that is the case (and I invite opinions to the contrary), then what my thoughts happen to really be do not matter. One thought is the same is the other, it is a thought. So as long as I can not see clearly while thinking, using symbolism and labels, in my own mind it does not matter what those symbols are. I know that they are all useless…like said in a previous post… something to pass the time.

As long I know I can move back to a clear state at any time, it really does not matter what those thoughts are. Those thoughts when focused on completely are as real as what is perceived through the senses. Once we know how to get out of a maze, it is very hard to get lost in it. But we can participate in it anyway we see fit, because the maze (the world and this life) is all there is right now. Whether we see it clearly for what it is or not.

If there is no soul, that is fine. I have not attachment to the idea. But thought watching thought is not a viable alternative because I am not talking about analyzing thought. I am talking about how we are able to witness a thought in the first place. Adding more thoughts, or thought watching though, has little do with that in my humble opinion.

Soul or no soul, does it matter? I don’t say that to be flippant, I actually mean it. Which is what I suppose the purpose of this discussion is. And it seems like some are saying that if it doesn’t matter, then move beyond believing there is a soul. And I say if none of it matters, then I will believe in souls.

In times of complete clarity, I don’t see any soul. I don’t see myself as a soul but rather something which is part of what is being witnessed-just a compilation of senses. I don’t generally see good or bad either during these times. But when I move back into everyday life and interacting with people I choose to say I believe in souls, and also label certain things as good an bad. Not for my own sake, but for easy means of communicating with others.

This seems dichotomous. But it is no different (or please provide ideas to the contrary) than seeing a piece of a garbage in a clear state. You see how it is a part of everything, how it came to be there. It is perfect as it is, where it lays. It could be no other way at that exact moment. But in everyday life, when out for a stroll and chatting with my friends, I would pick it up and put in the garbage, because I believe it should be in the garbage.

I think what I am getting is something you mentioned in the discussion [not on this site]…I don’t remember the exact wording, but the idea that there is almost two of us within the individual.

The everyday person who reacts, and interacts. And then their is the other side, which see things clearly but is not on the surface 100% of the time. Although maybe it can be?  This is the soul to me.  The clear and wise part of the identity within us which is often shrouded by elements created by our connection, and often preoccupation, with the physical.

There is a buddha and the great buddha. The budhhas reach enlightenment and stay there. The great buddhas go back into the world and help others (sorry, poor and incomplete way of stating that). We can’t help anyone if we don’t speak their language. And so I speak their language and adapt certain views. But I realize none of those views matter really matter to me. But I might argue a point if I think it will help others.

Why do these “views really not matter to me”?  Because if we accept we have a soul, then we must get over the idea that it is the soul that needs to moved forward.  It is not the soul that needs to be worked on, or advanced.  Rather it simply needs to be elevated to the surface of our being (elevating the soul, ah hah).  That is enlightenment.  And I view enlightenment in this way the same as a buddist or other factions may view enlightenment for the end result seems to be the same.

———-

So I will cut this off here for now, but I will leave you with what the general rebuttal is to what I said above.  Some of the others involved in the discussion, who believe the idea of the soul needs to be dropped, proposed the following ideas…

“A thought is only observed after it has arisen, and not as it arises.”

“Obviously, memory is needed in order to observe it, but the point is that Awareness is expressing AS the thought, and then it becomes aware of it’s own expression, which at that point IS an object to Awareness. Once the thought is being observed, the thought itself has passed and it becomes the observation of a memory.”

These ideas are pointed at tearing down my belief that there is almost an observer within us, which is one of my main arguments for the existence of the soul.  Some may call it conscience, or an inner wisdom, but I simply opt to call it the observer.  I will go into much more detail on why and how it is that I believe this in the next post.

Some interesting points which we will cover in the next segment…

Have a great day!

~Cory Mitchell