THE SOUL

[Though this essay in incomplete, it is a intentional exploration of that which is called "soul," a most overused word in both religion and psychology, often even a "buzz word." It had to have been copyrighted where I went to school, but I digress. Like it's great forebearer, "God," I have wanted to explore "soul" for so many years. This is not such much an "exploration of soul" as my own personal and too brief story. But I warn you: more will follow.]

I have been “sitting” (zazen) off and on for forty years now. I have at times experienced myself as a flowing river, usually calm on the surface though not always. At times when I have sat, the level of the river recedes a bit, revealing some of what is beneath the surface, whether it be the actual layout of the land under the water or whether it be objects like old tires or tree trunks or other debris lodged together in a mass obstacle to the flow of the river. Sometimes the obstacles have dislodged of their own accord and other times I have been able to loosen or free them. And sometimes, when the rock shelf that is the river’s foundation has been revealed to me, I am able to understand how and why the river flows as it does, why its banks have formed as they have. One such revelation occurred to me just yesterday as I sat. I realized that it is not “my soul” that I possess but rather that I am the vehicle of this soul that I call mine. For I exist in the context of the soul; it does not exist in the context of me. The soul is greater than “I” am, “I” being the physical, mental, emotional, psychic/spiritual all tolled. In other words, what I consider to be myself is the form in which the soul inhabits. In time and in space, the soul will leave and this form, the body will die.

             In my life I have visited many different “spiritual” milieus, from Roman Catholicism, to Quakerism, to Rosicrucianism, to Hinduism, to Theosophy, to Buddhism (Tibetan and Zen, in particular), to Vedantism, to Jungism, shamanism and more). I have heard the word soul bandied about even more frequently than the word God. And, it usually meant something quite different depending on whether its particular setting was theological, psychological, religious (as distinct from theological), devotional, shamanic, cultural, and so on. Joseph Campbell noted that, though Christianity claims to be monotheistic, every single Christian he asked to define “God” presented a different picture. I think that the term soul, if asked to be defined, would even be more varied; soul lacks the dubious advantage of the old white man with flowing robes standing in the clouds. However, the soul does have its definite images, which will be examined later. In my experience, particularly within Roman Catholic, Theosophical, and Jungian circles, the word soul is ubiquitous, paramount to all discussion, conversation, and literature. Yet, like use of the word God, though everyone used the word soul freely, it was a catchword that referred to something everyone wanted to understand but that no one really did. People used soul interchangeably with other words, such as “spirit,” “psyche,” “higher self,” “feeling,” “truth,” “daemon,” and more. It was so obvious to me that there was no understanding, much less consistency, in the use of the word soul. Thus, I realized that it would behoove those interested to come to a greater understanding and comprehension of soul, that is, of what it is and what is its purpose.

             Being raised Roman Catholic and going to Catholic grade school, high school, and college (Jesuit), soul still was not very clear in my mind at all. Since I had been taught that one’s “immortal soul could burn in Hell,” I suppose I had the inclination to believe that the soul was always highly at risk of being misled and consequently not particularly dependable at all, so I didn’t pay it much mind. It was only after studying Theosophy as presented by Alice Bailey and the Arcane School that I began to look at the soul rather differently. The Theosophists, while putting much emphasis on “the journey or evolution of the soul,” also tended to foster a belief in it as one’s “higher self,” perhaps simply because it was considered the aspect of ourselves that continues living on after the physical body is vacated. In many respects this is the same as the Roman Catholic view, however it felt as if the Theosophists held the soul in higher regard than the Christians did. It seems that the Theosophists viewed the soul more in its spiritual potential, in its evolutionary spiritual journey, more than the Roman Catholics did or understood, since the Roman Catholic writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine had much to say about the soul and its journey. As I read Rudolf Steiner, who used the term anthroposophy, though also theosophy as well as “spiritual science,” to describe his teachings, I find that he does not hold the soul in particularly high esteem whatsoever, noting that it is very impressionable and easily susceptible to error and evil. Mythologically, the soul is best represented in the Mercury-Hermes, the Messenger of the Gods, who travels between the Gods and humanity, Heaven and Earth, as well as Heaven and Hell. In Roman Catholicism, this function of communication between Spirit and Matter, God the Father and God the Son is represented by the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. Mercury-Hermes is the bridge between matter and spirit, human and divine. He has this particular power and is equally distrusted by God and human, for he is devious, egotistical, demonic, unangelic, and the “Trickster” wherever he appears. But he is the only one able—and willing—to make the risky journey between Heaven and Earth-Hell; his only payment may be the ability to play a trick or two. It may be that this is the nature of the soul: messenger between God and human, bridge between the worlds of the seen and the unseen, Matter and Spirit.  When the “esotericists” and “occultists” of Theosophy enjoin their members to “find an identity with the soul” in the context of “higher being,” they demonstrate great faith in what could very well be a more developed and evolved state of soul-being, or they could be naively hoping against hope, for the soul may perhaps see itself as merely a “messenger” delivering highly precious messages. I believe that the soul inherently must be able to be aptly refined and purified if it is to be able to carry such divine messages; if it were not, it would not be able to hold such power. When the Theosophists speak of the soul it appears that they are referring to this higher level of soul manifestation or expression.