For the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, the soul had something that was called “fora”, meaning direction. In other words, the soul was thought to have taken up, long before the birth of the body it inhabited, the direction of good or evil. Thus, man was considered to be born good or bad.
Quite some time has passed since then. Meanwhile, psychology has sustained that hereditary elements account less than behavioral ones for a person’s conduct. A person turns good or bad, according to the conditioning s/he receives during childhood.
Notwithstanding that, my late grandmother was certain that it's what people are made of that is of importance. No matter how many hardships one runs into in the course of his life, if he has a good soul, he will keep his goodness forever - and vice versa.
If this is so, however, how guilty is someone who commits murder? What if he is (genetically or at soul level) predisposed to do so? Can he be found guilty for his genes or his soul’s predisposition? How can these be his fault?
What do you think?
2010-07-13
2010-07-01
Is there such a thing as soul?
Much talked about, much used, the concept of soul has nowadays turned into a chewing gum, especially when put in the context of reincarnation. The truth is that the concept of soul has been tackled by both philosophy and religion since antiquity; this should account for the dozens of definitions there are. The soul is also connected to immortality, as it is widely believed that it’s the one and only component that survives physical death. In connection with the body, the latter is seen either as its prison or its shrine.
In terms of etymology, the word soul is linked by some scholars with the word sea, probably reflecting early Germanic peoples’ beliefs that the bottom of the sea was the place where souls originate and return. The corresponding Greek word psyche literally means a “gasp of air blown into”.
Do I believe in soul? Well, I used to. I am not so sure any more that the concept can be of real use; on the contrary, it can be misleading. People talk about the soul and reincarnation, as if it is their personality that will survive; a grave misunderstanding. Soul and personality are not the same. If it exists, the soul is the underlying layer where the ingredients of personality (thoughts, emotions, sentiments) softly fall upon or, by contrast, achingly leave their burning etchings on. It is the sum-up, the end result of a person’s tendencies, virtues, vices, ethics, codes of conduct, etc. It is the “therefore” of one’s life.
If there really is something of the sort, it should be likened to a processor and personality to a piece of software. Thus, “real” love for example should translate into love of the processor rather than the software.
And then there are other questions. Is soul restricted to humans? In other words, is it only humans that have soul? What about animals, plants, minerals? Is the animistic view to be ruled out as total folly?
What do you think?
In terms of etymology, the word soul is linked by some scholars with the word sea, probably reflecting early Germanic peoples’ beliefs that the bottom of the sea was the place where souls originate and return. The corresponding Greek word psyche literally means a “gasp of air blown into”.
Do I believe in soul? Well, I used to. I am not so sure any more that the concept can be of real use; on the contrary, it can be misleading. People talk about the soul and reincarnation, as if it is their personality that will survive; a grave misunderstanding. Soul and personality are not the same. If it exists, the soul is the underlying layer where the ingredients of personality (thoughts, emotions, sentiments) softly fall upon or, by contrast, achingly leave their burning etchings on. It is the sum-up, the end result of a person’s tendencies, virtues, vices, ethics, codes of conduct, etc. It is the “therefore” of one’s life.
If there really is something of the sort, it should be likened to a processor and personality to a piece of software. Thus, “real” love for example should translate into love of the processor rather than the software.
And then there are other questions. Is soul restricted to humans? In other words, is it only humans that have soul? What about animals, plants, minerals? Is the animistic view to be ruled out as total folly?
What do you think?
2010-06-23
On koans
The purpose of a koan is for the person who engages in it to realize the difference between the mind (which manifests itself as a flow of thoughts) and consciousness (which is the space that contains the flow of thoughts). Always the issue is to understand that it is identification with our thoughts and feelings which creates the sense of “I” and that there is something broader, namely consciousness, which is common to all and within which our individual “I”s simply happen. Zen masters identify consciousness with life itself.
The paradox surrounding a koan tends to arouse the mind for long, as the mind thinks it over and over trying to “solve” the paradox or simply find an answer, more or less like a dog chasing its tale. With koans, one is given the opportunity to realize the difference between mind and consciousness.
The moment when someone realizes that mind and consciousness are two different things, he can understand that the mind identifies with his personality and consciousness with his essence; this is how the koan’s purpose is fulfilled.
Fulfilling the purpose of a koan has little to do with explaining it. No matter how many explanations a koan receives, its meaning is never exhausted anyway. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it has one and only, definitive explanation.
Examples of koans:
- Two hands clap and a sound is produced. What is the sound of one hand?
- How can one express the truth without speech and without silence?
- If I truly love myself, I must not love myself. If I want to protect myself, I must not protect myself.
- It’s neither the flag that moves nor the wind; it’s the mind.
The paradox surrounding a koan tends to arouse the mind for long, as the mind thinks it over and over trying to “solve” the paradox or simply find an answer, more or less like a dog chasing its tale. With koans, one is given the opportunity to realize the difference between mind and consciousness.
The moment when someone realizes that mind and consciousness are two different things, he can understand that the mind identifies with his personality and consciousness with his essence; this is how the koan’s purpose is fulfilled.
Fulfilling the purpose of a koan has little to do with explaining it. No matter how many explanations a koan receives, its meaning is never exhausted anyway. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it has one and only, definitive explanation.
Examples of koans:
- Two hands clap and a sound is produced. What is the sound of one hand?
- How can one express the truth without speech and without silence?
- If I truly love myself, I must not love myself. If I want to protect myself, I must not protect myself.
- It’s neither the flag that moves nor the wind; it’s the mind.
2010-06-21
A koan
A koan: “There is no time. What is memory?”
If I knock the table with my hand twice, I have to accept that it’s time that separates the two knocks from each other. Therefore, time exists. But it only exists because I have memory of the first knock.
Everything I build within me, I build using memory as cornerstone – and because memory has plenty defects, I cannot but doubt everything I build.
What does this leave me with? With this very moment, right now; nothing more. Even if time exists, it’s not important.
If I knock the table with my hand twice, I have to accept that it’s time that separates the two knocks from each other. Therefore, time exists. But it only exists because I have memory of the first knock.
Everything I build within me, I build using memory as cornerstone – and because memory has plenty defects, I cannot but doubt everything I build.
What does this leave me with? With this very moment, right now; nothing more. Even if time exists, it’s not important.
2010-06-18
Love (second part)
b. Lowering one’s defenses. This has been discussed over and over in this blog and it is essentially a rephrasing of “allowing one’s heart to break”. In connection to romantic love, we may see it is the more beneficial the more it relates to oneself, meaning that the benefits are reaped at the level of oneself and less at the level of interacting with another, as is the common misconception.
c. The focusing of sexuality. Sexuality too is personal. It is believed to bring people together, but it doesn’t do it on its own, cultural conditioning does it.
We may see then that “love” is primarily an internal process – it comes from and returns to the self. Although it is the object of one’s infatuation allegedly receives our attention, in the end it was us and only us behind the scene all along.
“Real love” in connection to another human being is the point where we accept and allow them to be as they are. It is the point where we can afford such an attitude. It is a point of reconciliation with ourselves, first of all, and of inner strength.
c. The focusing of sexuality. Sexuality too is personal. It is believed to bring people together, but it doesn’t do it on its own, cultural conditioning does it.
We may see then that “love” is primarily an internal process – it comes from and returns to the self. Although it is the object of one’s infatuation allegedly receives our attention, in the end it was us and only us behind the scene all along.
“Real love” in connection to another human being is the point where we accept and allow them to be as they are. It is the point where we can afford such an attitude. It is a point of reconciliation with ourselves, first of all, and of inner strength.
2010-06-09
Love
The discussion on communication gave me the impulse to reflect a little on the concept of romantic love between two people. What is this love? Let’s explore.
When we tell someone “I love you”, we are in fact stating that we feel the chemistry between us, which is mutually based on acceptance and admiration. We are also saying that we are lowering our defenses to a great extent, allowing the other person to even hurt us. We mean that our sexuality is focused on and channeled to that other person. At the same time, the tendency to protect and take care of him/her, which is similar to what parents feel for their children, emerges. People also refer to an unexplainable connection with that person at a deep/soul level.
I think that the package is, more or less, this. Let us now explore its components.
a. The (big) issue of chemistry. The chemistry between two people can lead (according to some) or is the result of (according to others) an unexplainable and deep soul connection. That the chemistry leads to the connection is, I think, the natural procedure. That the chemistry is the result of soul connection is, in my view, nothing more than internal projection: we convince ourselves that this is so and that what is happening to us is “destiny” – thus, inevitable.
Darwinists maintain that the chemistry felt when two people meet is nothing but the mutual recognition that the combination of their genes will underpin evolution. Some esotericists talk about karma and the law of reciprocity, others – more serious in my opinion – attribute the fact to an omni-present intelligence which recognises that these two people can “learn” from each other.
That the purpose of such a relationship is to “learn” marks the point from which we are allowed to see that the concept of love is nothing more than a purely internal process that starts from and returns to the “I” – what is handed over to the “you” suddenly becomes secondary.
(to be continued…)
When we tell someone “I love you”, we are in fact stating that we feel the chemistry between us, which is mutually based on acceptance and admiration. We are also saying that we are lowering our defenses to a great extent, allowing the other person to even hurt us. We mean that our sexuality is focused on and channeled to that other person. At the same time, the tendency to protect and take care of him/her, which is similar to what parents feel for their children, emerges. People also refer to an unexplainable connection with that person at a deep/soul level.
I think that the package is, more or less, this. Let us now explore its components.
a. The (big) issue of chemistry. The chemistry between two people can lead (according to some) or is the result of (according to others) an unexplainable and deep soul connection. That the chemistry leads to the connection is, I think, the natural procedure. That the chemistry is the result of soul connection is, in my view, nothing more than internal projection: we convince ourselves that this is so and that what is happening to us is “destiny” – thus, inevitable.
Darwinists maintain that the chemistry felt when two people meet is nothing but the mutual recognition that the combination of their genes will underpin evolution. Some esotericists talk about karma and the law of reciprocity, others – more serious in my opinion – attribute the fact to an omni-present intelligence which recognises that these two people can “learn” from each other.
That the purpose of such a relationship is to “learn” marks the point from which we are allowed to see that the concept of love is nothing more than a purely internal process that starts from and returns to the “I” – what is handed over to the “you” suddenly becomes secondary.
(to be continued…)
2010-06-07
Communication
As I surf around the blogs of my newly acquired Opera friends, I see how their posts reflect ideas, beliefs, maxims, thoughts, emotions etc. drawn either from a more philosophical or a more real-life context, depending on each person’s composure. That’s normal – even typical.
At the same time, that’s why the most striking feature I’ve noticed is in the comments. Most of the time, people write a comment not in reply to the ideas etc. discussed in the post, but on a personal basis in friendly tunes. This creates the impression that making a comment is more important than the comment itself. It is, therefore, as if what’s of real importance is not the ideas etc. discussed, but communication per se. I like that very much.
Even though I often don’t feel comfortable addressing people I barely know on such a personal basis, I really enjoy watching the easiness of others when they do it and I also enjoy the way it is received by the authors. As far as I’m concerned, it’s like people cut to the chase and go after what’s real: communication. One might argue that the internet allows only a superficial type of communication. Maybe; but it’s still wonderful.
At the same time, that’s why the most striking feature I’ve noticed is in the comments. Most of the time, people write a comment not in reply to the ideas etc. discussed in the post, but on a personal basis in friendly tunes. This creates the impression that making a comment is more important than the comment itself. It is, therefore, as if what’s of real importance is not the ideas etc. discussed, but communication per se. I like that very much.
Even though I often don’t feel comfortable addressing people I barely know on such a personal basis, I really enjoy watching the easiness of others when they do it and I also enjoy the way it is received by the authors. As far as I’m concerned, it’s like people cut to the chase and go after what’s real: communication. One might argue that the internet allows only a superficial type of communication. Maybe; but it’s still wonderful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)