Once again our small group has struck gold. In the book we are reading - Henry Shukman’s Original Love - he throws in a section on the soul. Now, all good Buddhists will know that this is a tricky area because the Buddha, unlike everyone else at his time, rejected the belief in the existence of a Self that was the spiritual essence of the person and which at death merged with what we might call ‘God’. So something very similar to some understandings of soul. The Buddha said that when he looked very carefully into himself during meditation he could find no such entity and more or less every evolution of Buddhism that has happened since agrees. When you look into the mind that is thinking and feeling you cannot find the thinker or feeler. There is simply nothing there - however, rest in that space which is pervaded with awareness and we will realise that the entire universe unfolds within it.
So what about this tricky soul then? In conversation with a member of the group it dawned on us that the word soul could be used as a noun - the Soul - or as an adjective - an emotional experience that might be described as ‘soulful’. Of these two it is only the first which causes problems because it easily suggests something Self-like that is an essential and unchanging entity that perhaps comes into a person at birth and departs at death. So something that apparently doesn’t change, is not impermanent. Something that therefore contradicts the biggest Buddhist insight that absolutely everything is in a constant process of flux. That nothing is separate or remains the same.
This problem does not come up when soul means soulful experiences because it is then merely a description that captures the magic of a particular passing moment and may suggest a glimpse of something very special, something that may even be called ‘spiritual’. This is the way Henry is using it - when our spiritual practice, our thinking about and living the Dharma, supported by our meditation, is soulful then it has juice within it, there is a passion that drives it forward, it is deeply compelling. It is fully alive. In this sense we could say our practice of the Dharma is deeply soulful and that would be a very good thing.
But why is Buddhism so scratchy about the existence of anything like an eternal self, soul or spirit? Again it comes down to something not philosophical but rather entirely practical about what causes suffering and what doesn’t. The Buddha also observed that our instinct for self-preservation could, when it becomes driven and desperate, cause us a great deal of discomfort and pain. Any perceived threat to who we believe we are, to our emotions, our thoughts, and of course our bodies, can create a reactive closing down in exactly the same way a snail will instantly retract into its shell when touched. A tight ball of fear. In this contracted and unhappy space there is no ease, no comfort, no joy and most importantly of all it is the antithesis of the awakened mind which is entirely open and confident. So again the message is very clear - the belief in a soul could very easily support the delusion that we have a separate self that must then be defended and if this was so it is not going to make us - and by extension everyone around us - happy. And this of course is what our practice is all about. Learning to recognise when we have contracted and using our presence, curiosity and kindness to open again.
NW. 6 Febuary 2025 With thanks to C.A.G. for their inspiration.
Comentários