Where do souls come from?

I would hardly call myself a spiritual man, but questions of the divine have always fascinated me.

Assuming that one's 'immortal soul' continues to exist long after someone's death, is it not possible that a some sort of before life to also exist?

Are we just born into existence from nothingness? Or does one's souls originate from somewhere else before we come into this life?

Do any of you have any beliefs on the subject?

Ancient alien soul generators.

It buds off your parents' souls.

edited 8th Jul '11 10:41:32 AM by annebeeche

They grow in a host body and develop. When they get big enough they look for anothe soul and swap soul bits. These bits need to quickly find a host or they die. Over time the host and the soul develop a mutual symbiosis. The soul gets to experience the world around them and the host gets help with decisions. Souls tend to out live their host. Not to be confused with soles, another type of parasite.

I am not sure where the first souls come from in Buddhism. There's no answer given to this to my knowledge and no answer about how the very first version of the world was first created. To my knowledge. The current version may be the result of the former universe being recycled. Time is cyclical and even the universe has an expiration date. Once dead it is formed anew using the bits of the old one.

Your current soul comes from the souls of other beings as well as your "past self". Souls break up after death. You get one bit from your "past self" that carries with it your consciousness and kamma/karma along with memories, flaws, and skills. Because it is broken up and you are only get one fourth of the original version your memories of this self are incomplete. You get three other bits from the broken up souls of other recently deceased sentient beings (could be gods, animals, humans, ghosts, people in hell). These carry with them bits of memory, skills, and flaws.

Your new soul is born. From the recycled bits of other souls that have been heavily recycled over time as well.

This also means that your current self's personality and memories will get lost almost completely somewhere down the line.

edited 8th Jul '11 11:38:17 AM by Aondeug

The soul or spirit is just a primitive theory of the mind, formulated by observing the act of breathing - living people breathe, while dead people don't. That's why most words for spirit or soul originate in words for "breath." From there, this vitalistic breath theory was combined with a primitive theory of consciousness, and voila, the Soul was born.

It was only logical to wonder where the soul went after a person stops breathing, and that's where the afterlife and such comes into play.

The Modern English word soulderived from Old English sáwol, sáwel, first attested to in the 8th century poem Beowulfv. 2820 and in the Vespasian Psalter 77.50, and is a cognate to other Germanic and Baltic terms for the same idea, including Gothic saiwala, Old High German sêula, sêla, Old Saxon sêola, Old Low Franconian sêla, sîla, Old Norse sálaas well as Lithuanian siela. Further etymology of the Germanic word is uncertain. A more recent suggestion[4]connects it with a root for "binding", Germanic *sailian(OE s?lian, OHG seilen), related to the notion of being "bound" in death, and the practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent his or her return as a ghost

The greeks and the jews got the word from breath. True. And souls in the greek sense ended with life.

A force within us that survives after death is an older concept and not all of it comes from breath. Just because our ancestors believed in something that later turned out not happen that way doesn't mean the thing no longer exists.

So far, the strongest theory on the origin of souls appears to be that they come from the same place as vampires and faeries— the human imagination.

I was hoping some tropers of a religious persuasion could share their views on the matter.

edited 9th Jul '11 3:23:44 AM by joeyjojo

Well, the Catholic position, I believe, is that they are created at conception, which is called 'ensoulment'. I have no idea what it's supposed to be created from - little soul seeds in the sperm and egg? Just willed out of the nothingness by God? Pulled out of some enormous cosmic storeroom?

What do I think? I have no idea.

edited 9th Jul '11 3:43:08 AM by LoniJay

Interesting, There is no official word on the matter then?

edited 9th Jul '11 3:54:45 AM by joeyjojo

I don't actually know if there is an official position on that. You might need to ask someone who knows a little more about theology than me - I think there are some hanging around the forum.

edited 9th Jul '11 3:55:54 AM by LoniJay

In Islam, all the souls are already created. God, as the creator, know exactly the path each souls will take. However, as stated in Quran 17:85, very little knowledge about the soul is revealed.

The word for spirit derives from the idea of breath in more than just Hebrew and Greek - Latin, Sanskrit (prana), Chinese (qi), the Baltic languages, the Slavic root, Scandinavian languages - hell, most Semitic and Indo-European languages.

It really does suggest a conceptual connection.

Buddhism's word for soul comes from breath as well. Atta or atman which derive from the root et-men (breath). Though when we speak of atman we do not really speak of the soul itself entirely as we conceive it religiously but more the illusion of the soul being an eternal and never changing entity. Something that has an essence to it that is always the same. An essential essence.

In contrast to atta we speak of the truth of anatta or "no-soul". This doesn't mean that we do not believe in the concept of a soul. We do as I described in that nice big post I made up there. It's just that the soul isn't a static thing that exists forever. It breaks down into little bits following death and it undergoes various changes over time. Some memories are more less entirely lost to the constant splitting of souls, some skills and flaws undergo this, your kamma is always changing, and your stream of consciousness and perspective is never entirely the same each life.

There is also the more earthly and practical portion of anatta. Your identity and self are always changing. You as you are now are not yourself as a child nor will you be yourself as you are now five years in the future. You may be similar and your past selves may make what you are now but you are subject to change and eventually death and with that death the death of your self and its identity. Along with all the "little deaths" you undergo through your life and development. Basically this means that our struggling to be "ourselves" and to give meaning to "ourselves" as well as our reluctance to change "ourselves" and our reluctance to not be "ourselves" are ultimately entirely lost efforts that do little but cause Dukkha (various forms of conflict, suffering is the most used translation though that's a hideously narrow one). Whether we like it or not change and death are part of things and the best route, according to Buddhism, is to accept this and give up clinging to the concept of "self".

And then we have Enlightenment which, when achieved fully, leads to the leaving of existence of your soul. A thing that is neither existence nor complete non-existence. The paradoxical trascendence of reality that is Nibbana (or to be helplessly specific Parinibbana with no fuel remaining) which depending on your beliefs is the ultimate end of all souls in existence. It just takes a long fucking time.

This along with other things (the universe dying and remaking itself) seems to suggest that souls are born in some fashion but we don't offer an explanation as to how or why souls first come into being. We have explanations on how your current one comes into being what it is and how they change over time instead.

Perhaps it could be that all your soul bits remain, but your consciousness becomes detached from them and you just enter whatever the fuck The Othershore is for all eternity? If you wanted to explain the thing without having to make an answer for how new souls are born.

Also it may be important to note that there exists more than a few atheistic Buddhists who consider all the metaphysics and cosmology poppycock that should be ignored.

edited 9th Jul '11 11:34:57 AM by Aondeug

I've spent a very large amount of time thinking about this. I believe that once a person dies their soul goes to the Otherworld for a time, and then returns to this universe in another body after a while(a process Socrates, or I think it was Socrates, called "Metempsychosis"; he ascribed the belief to the Iron Age Celts). However, there are more people on the Earth than have ever been at the moment. Does this mean some alien civilisation is dying out? Or perhaps the souls are simply spending less time in Tir na nOg now? These are all possible, as is the possibility of new souls forming.

Now THAT process is one I'm not sure about. Do souls reproduce in the Otherworld, perhaps, as we reproduce in the physical realm? Perhaps the gods make them, taking an animal consciousness and infusing it with the potential for logic, artistic expression, and honour?

TL;DR, I have no fucking clue.

Also, it's only normal for atheists to come into threads like this and talk about how it's bullshit; ignore them, it'll save you a face palm or two.

edited 9th Jul '11 12:48:46 PM by Diamonnes

I like to think about the possibility of soul birth as being just something that the universe does. So no soul mating and the gods aren't making them. The universe just sort of...does it. Because that's what it does. Like kamma. It's just a part of the universe.

Oh yes. One more thing about souls in Buddhism. All sentient beings have souls. "Sentient beings" includes anything that has any form of consciousness or senses. So every ant has a soul. Gods (this essentially translates to "Alien that lives longer than us and may have a greater understanding of the universe or greater physical strength than us"), ghosts, and people in Naraka also have souls. As do humans of course.

The soul, at its most base level, is just the thing that grants sentience (more complicated matters include kamma, memories, skills, flaws, traits, and so on). We can't truly say that it is the "spark of life" with Buddhism. Not everything is judged as sentient though many things are considered living. Plants for example are living despite not being considered sentient beings and despite not traditionally being seen as having souls.

edited 9th Jul '11 12:51:14 PM by Aondeug

That's kind of a terrible syllogism, but anyway, there's a word for that.

edited 9th Jul '11 12:53:04 PM by Tzetze

Pre-existence, I'm surprised I haven't heard of the word for it before.

We spend so much time wondering where we are going, we never stop and think where we have been.

edited 9th Jul '11 4:42:34 PM by joeyjojo

Really, I don't like such superstitious ideas as that of the soul. Normally I'd be content to leave people to believe in such superstitions if they want to, but in practice it's a harmful idea, as it leads people to oppose things like abortion or embryonic stem cell research for misguided reasons. (Of course, not all opponents of such things believe in souls, but it's a major enough part of it to need to be confronted.)

Neo: I'm afraid that isn't "people who believe in souls", it's "IDIOTS who believe in souls". "All religious people oppose useful research" is like saying "all gingers have green eyes". It happens, and there's certainly a corrolation, but it's not always the case.

In addition, the sheer number of people in the thread saying "I don't believe in souls, neither should you" are missing the entire fucking point.

edited 10th Jul '11 10:03:16 AM by Diamonnes

@17, Why don't plants have souls? They have sensors, certainly.

Also, I like the idea of the soul touched on in Accelerando: "Souls are software objects."

Relatedly, I really dislike the idea of a physical/spiritual ka(r)ma because it implies something very, very scary: the universe cares. The thousands millions of different Tear Jerker-worthy lives aren't because the universe is random and uncaring and the law of averages says that someone's going to be worse off; it's because they actually did something to deserve it. It's because someone in the past did something nasty, (someone I can't even justifiably say is the same person, because everything denoting "personhood" changes, AFAIK.) and they're suffering for it.

I know this isn't true for the very simple reason there isn't enough travesty to go around.

edited 10th Jul '11 10:05:14 AM by Yej

And you can talk to them with an EEG! It's science!

Because traditionally Buddhism doesn't assign them souls. Apparently they weren't aware that the things had sensors of any sort. I myself would count them and most life in general as being part of the "sentient beings with souls" thing.

I don't think the scary part of kamma is that the universe cares normally. I think the scariest part of kamma is that it is unfeeling and harsh in certain interpretations. If you have lets say...tons of negative kamma...that shit isn't going away just because you said sorry. It's still there and it's still festering and at some point it's going to come back and bite you in the ass. Saying sorry and being good may lessen the blow surely, but the blow's still coming.

Unless you are lucky enough to run into a god kind enough and knowledgeable enough in the realm of how the system works to take on your bad kamma. Stories of this have popped up on occasion. The most notable I can think of at the moment is that of Miao Shan, a life of Guanyin, who took on the immense negative kamma of a man for killing her and then went on to turn a Hell into a Heaven before she battled her way through the levels of Hell with the powers of pure compassion and love.

As it is though the universe doesn't care. Kamma doesn't care. You can't destroy it just because you dislike it and how it works. You have to play by its rules because its a law of the universe. Fighting kamma head on is as stupid as attempting to battle gravity by jumping off a skyscraper with nothing but the clothes on your back. Sure you can attempt it but it won't work. Also kamma carries over over lifetimes which can lead to victim blaming.

The saving graces of the system are there though...Kamma and how its fruits play out can be affected by the beings around you and their own kamma. This can be a good thing. Kamma also apparently judges not just on action, but on intention, circumstance, and the results of the action. Killing can in certain cases be judged easily it seems. Kamma is also something you can affect personally so long as you know how to play by its rules. You have to play by them however. With the kamma-rebirth system you are also given infinite chances to get it right. Even when the universe dies it just remakes itself so you still have chances. You probably have to start all over again, but you have chances. Chances up the ass. Everyone does. Everyone also gets judged by the exact same set of rules. There's no being with feelings judging you. It's some soulless universal law that just happens to exist.

Kamma is just an unfeeling universal law. It's part of why you want out in these interpretations. Because the universe doesn't care in the slightest and the rules of it are harsh. Even if it does care you want out because the system is ass and you know it.

edited 10th Jul '11 10:54:16 AM by Aondeug

(Sorry, somewhat random order.)

What do you mean, "lead to" victim blaming? Doesn't it necessarily imply that victim blaming is justified? After all, "karma" in the colloquial is basically a synonym for the idea that if something bad's happened, you deserve it.

Also, another why I, and probably any other physicist, disagrees with karma is because the scale's all wrong. All 4 other laws of physics act on objects about the same size as quarks, if not smaller. The direct effect of the laws (bar gravity) vanishes almost entirely at any scale larger than that of the atomic nucleus, and you're only left with their emergent behavior. (At this point, we haven't even introduced chemistry.) By the time you get up to the scale of entire molecules, the only forces that matter are electromagnetism and, to a far lesser extent, gravity; the others have vanished into insignificance.

But you're suggesting a law of "physics" that doesn't operate at the scale of atoms, or even molecules. Nor does it operate at the scale of entire, unthinkably gigantic in this context cells; it operates at the scale of macroscopic objects. Not only that, it recognizes the idea of discrete objects. No other aspect of fundamental physics does this. The concept of discrete objects, having certain velocities, disappears at the scale of molecules, billions of times larger than any fundamental law. Karma not only recognizes discrete objects, it recognizes human-scale objects; it recognizes that Earth-and-everything-on-it is a multitude, not a single entity, but not the multitude of billions and billions of cells that make up a human.

Not only does it operate at a bizarrely appropriate scale, it does not what no law of fundamental physics should be doing: it involves abstract processing. Karma understands that there is such a thing as intent and that there is such a thing as a personality flaw. It understands context. This basically means that karma is not a law of physics; it's a non-sentient god.

As a final note, all major theories of physics incorporate a concept known as charge-parity-time symmetry. That is, if you invert the numbers denoting electric charge, position in 3-space, and time, the ordinary laws of physics will describe the resulting universe. However, this universe may involve shattered glass suddenly jumping together and reforming into a vase, and so applying conventional karma to it would be completely nonsensical.