Latest / New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast / The Soul with Emile Alexandrov

Transcript

The Soul with Emile Alexandrov · New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast

• 0:00
  Of
• 0:14
  course, you know, like I said with the
• 0:16
  Greeks, it's not so decisive that they
• 0:20
  have a concrete entity to soul. Mhm. I
• 0:23
  mean the the Christians certainly read
• 0:24
  them as saying that that is the case but
• 0:27
  it isn't so much. Um whereas the
• 0:30
  Buddhists they take this as a starting
• 0:32
  point and they do this because
• 0:35
  they want to to narrow in meditation to
• 0:38
  the point where you no longer are aware
• 0:42
  of externals. So you're silencing.
• 0:45
  They're seeking that silencing.
• 0:47
  >> Right? So in so doing you have to
• 0:49
  silence quite literally every aspect of
• 0:51
  human experience.
• 0:53
  >> But the ultimately positive message of
• 0:56
  this is that it is not annihilation.
• 0:58
  This is what frightens a lot of people.
• 1:00
  They think about oblivion
• 1:02
  >> right
• 1:02
  >> or an abyss. It's not
• 1:05
  >> for the Buddhists. The idea is if you do
• 1:07
  silence all of this it is an
• 1:09
  unimaginable bliss.
• 1:12
  >> Yeah.
• 1:12
  >> Keep watching to learn more. The new
• 1:15
  Thinking Aloud magazine issue 10 on UFOs
• 1:18
  and UAP is now ready for free download
• 1:22
  and you can also order beautiful printed
• 1:25
  copies. Go to newthinkingaloud.org.
• 1:29
  New thinking aloud is presented by the
• 1:32
  California Institute for Human Science,
• 1:35
  a fully accredited university offering
• 1:38
  distant learning graduate degrees that
• 1:40
  focus on mind, body, and spirit. the
• 1:43
  topics that we cover here. We are
• 1:46
  particularly excited to announce new
• 1:48
  degrees emphasizing parasychology and
• 1:51
  the paranormal. Visit their website at
• 1:54
  cihs.edu.
• 1:58
  >> Book four in the new thinking aloud
• 2:00
  dialogue series is Charles T. Tart 70
• 2:05
  years of exploring consciousness and
• 2:08
  parasychology
• 2:10
  now available on Amazon.
• 2:12
  >> [music]
• 2:17
  >> Thinking Aloud
• 2:20
  conversations [music] on the leading
• 2:22
  edge of knowledge and discovery with
• 2:24
  psychologist Jeffrey Michionlo.
• 2:30
  [music]
• 2:35
  Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey
• 2:37
  Michionlo. Today we are going to talk
• 2:39
  about the soul. My guest is Emil
• 2:43
  Alexandruff who is here with me in
• 2:45
  Albuquerque. This is our second
• 2:48
  interview. I think you'll enjoy our
• 2:50
  first one on the romance of metaphysics,
• 2:53
  but we're going to really focus on a
• 2:55
  different topic today. It's not a
• 2:58
  preerequisite that you watch that
• 3:00
  interview, but you would really enjoy it
• 3:02
  if you do.
• 3:04
  Emil is the author of metaphysics and
• 3:07
  ineffable as well as the other platonist
• 3:10
  beginning. He's here in New Mexico today
• 3:13
  as a visiting scholar at the University
• 3:15
  of New Mexico and he is an assistant
• 3:18
  professor at Waseda University in Tokyo
• 3:22
  obviously a specialist in philosophy.
• 3:26
  Welcome again Emil.
• 3:27
  >> Thank you very much for having me
• 3:28
  Jeffrey.
• 3:29
  >> It's a pleasure to be with you once
• 3:31
  again. Truly
• 3:32
  >> likewise,
• 3:33
  >> I enjoyed our previous interview so
• 3:36
  much. I think in a way your passion for
• 3:40
  philosophy exemplifies what I think of
• 3:43
  as the epitome of what a new thinking
• 3:46
  allowed interview should be.
• 3:47
  >> Oh, I appreciate that very much. It's a
• 3:49
  great honor. Yeah.
• 3:51
  So
• 3:53
  I guess be before we start delving into
• 3:57
  the different ways that philosophy has
• 4:01
  examined and depicted the soul. Is there
• 4:05
  a way we can define it to begin with a
• 4:08
  starting point for our viewers?
• 4:10
  >> Well that's the challenge with trying to
• 4:13
  define the soul. See automatically we
• 4:15
  give it a definite article the soul. M
• 4:19
  >> so that in itself presents challenges.
• 4:21
  So we presume that there is something to
• 4:22
  be talking about.
• 4:24
  >> Yeah.
• 4:25
  >> Well, you know, for me the biggest issue
• 4:28
  is the starting point,
• 4:29
  >> right? So as we were discussing a lot of
• 4:32
  this over lunch,
• 4:34
  when I look at the world of experience,
• 4:37
  right, I see that things are always
• 4:39
  changing, right? Nothing stands still as
• 4:42
  Heracitis would say, right? And so from
• 4:45
  there I would have to presume that as an
• 4:49
  observer I am changing too.
• 4:53
  >> Now with that context in mind I
• 4:55
  automatically have to have an idea of
• 4:59
  awareness in a consistent state of
• 5:02
  change. From there I begin my inquiry
• 5:06
  into soul.
• 5:07
  >> Okay that's good.
• 5:09
  >> Yeah
• 5:10
  >> it's beautiful cuz I I feel full of soul
• 5:13
  now. And as you point out, I'll be 80
• 5:15
  this year. Uh, and I realize I'm not the
• 5:18
  same person that I was as, let's say, as
• 5:22
  a teenager. I'm very different now.
• 5:24
  >> Yeah. So, exactly. So, this features
• 5:26
  into the ancient debates on what soul
• 5:28
  actually is.
• 5:29
  Um, if we are to take it from the
• 5:31
  perspective of the Middle Ages, that's a
• 5:33
  very important point in history because
• 5:36
  prior to then it couldn't be decisively
• 5:39
  stated that the soul was an entity the
• 5:42
  way the Christian tradition would have
• 5:43
  it for example. So when you have
• 5:47
  thinkers like for example Aquinus
• 5:50
  >> defining soul on the basis of will right
• 5:53
  so a valition that is accompanying the
• 5:56
  intellect automatically we do have some
• 5:59
  form of objectified entity a
• 6:01
  concreteness to the person
• 6:03
  >> right of course this Aquinus justifies
• 6:06
  primarily through scripture right he has
• 6:10
  scripture as the background but then of
• 6:11
  course he also adds his own reasoning
• 6:14
  Um, would you like me to juxtapose this
• 6:17
  with the ancient tradition because
• 6:18
  that's where it's really different.
• 6:20
  >> Okay.
• 6:20
  >> Okay. So, basically with the ancient
• 6:22
  tradition,
• 6:23
  >> you're talking about the Greeks, I
• 6:24
  presume.
• 6:25
  >> Greeks. Yeah. Now, let's stick with the
• 6:27
  Greeks for now so we don't get too
• 6:28
  convoluted.
• 6:30
  Um, well, so basically, okay, so the
• 6:33
  Greeks would have viewed the world as a
• 6:37
  rational one, right? And this
• 6:40
  rationality is pretty much discerned by
• 6:43
  the person undergoing the experience. So
• 6:46
  from there what they see is that every
• 6:49
  person has a limited view of rationality
• 6:51
  as such. So following this idea
• 6:56
  we get the perspective of increasing
• 6:59
  grades of reason.
• 7:01
  And so what soul is then is but a
• 7:04
  fragment of a greater rationality which
• 7:07
  people like for example Aristotle and
• 7:09
  Plato would call the intellect. Okay. So
• 7:14
  from here we have to conclude at least
• 7:17
  um on the first level that so is
• 7:21
  derivative of a greater rational order.
• 7:24
  Mhm.
• 7:25
  >> So everything else about the world can
• 7:28
  be viewed to a greater extent in so far
• 7:31
  as you have greater amounts of reason.
• 7:34
  Now a lot of modern people are going to
• 7:36
  object to that definition. They're going
• 7:39
  to say soul is is about passion. It's
• 7:42
  about emotion. It's we use the word to
• 7:45
  say you're very soulful.
• 7:48
  usually means that you you're artistic
• 7:50
  or have have a great desire
• 7:55
  to do something in the world. That's
• 7:58
  right. I mean I would say definitely we
• 8:00
  are living in the modern paradigm of
• 8:01
  soul being a uniqueness an individual a
• 8:05
  subject.
• 8:06
  Now this you know is very difficult to
• 8:09
  account for when you look at ancient
• 8:11
  contexts you know I mean
• 8:13
  >> would even before Plato and Aristotle
• 8:16
  the prescratic philosophers accepted the
• 8:20
  idea of a rational
• 8:22
  universe
• 8:23
  >> absolutely I mean um depending on which
• 8:27
  prescratic we're talking about if we
• 8:28
  talk about Heracitis for example he
• 8:30
  talks about consistent change but this
• 8:33
  change works under the opaces of the
• 8:35
  logos So there is some order to this.
• 8:38
  >> Yeah.
• 8:39
  >> Right. And so the human being is merely
• 8:41
  subject to this order. Of course he
• 8:43
  doesn't articulate a very complex
• 8:45
  cosmology
• 8:47
  but he gives you that sense. And this is
• 8:49
  maintained well even into the early
• 8:51
  middle ages. Okay. So for example prior
• 8:54
  to the development of scholasticism
• 8:56
  proper the idea is that reason reigns
• 9:00
  supreme. reason in the sense of
• 9:03
  intellect. Uh the rationality of the
• 9:06
  world is in everything in the subject
• 9:09
  and in the object. So much so that there
• 9:11
  isn't even a distinction yet between the
• 9:13
  two.
• 9:14
  >> It seems to be a projection of something
• 9:17
  human. Humans discover that they can be
• 9:20
  rational and then project it out onto
• 9:23
  the world as a whole. So we get the
• 9:26
  idea, I think, of the animi, the soul of
• 9:28
  the world.
• 9:29
  >> Yeah, that's beautifully put. That's
• 9:31
  right. So if we are to turn for a second
• 9:34
  to the early let's say the Arabic
• 9:36
  tradition, right? So if let's take
• 9:37
  Alfarabi for example, a famous um
• 9:41
  neoplatonist and also a Aristotilian
• 9:44
  among other things.
• 9:45
  >> What century?
• 9:46
  >> So we're talking 9th century. So
• 9:48
  >> century.
• 9:49
  >> So he was born I'd say 870. He would
• 9:51
  have died 950
• 9:53
  >> somewhere thereabouts. So, Al Farabi
• 9:56
  would have had um would have had this
• 9:59
  idea um an aboutness. Okay, he used the
• 10:04
  Arabic term for aboutness. There is
• 10:05
  aboutness in the world by which you go
• 10:08
  to make meaning. So, you look at things
• 10:12
  um purely unadulterated first. Let's say
• 10:15
  a chair, right? Or a tree. You look at
• 10:18
  it and then you just make sense of it by
• 10:21
  bringing it in internally
• 10:24
  into the mind. So then it works it out
• 10:25
  and then you discern that's a chair. It
• 10:27
  serves this function. So there is this
• 10:30
  two stage process mediation if you like
• 10:33
  right which he thinks is only particular
• 10:37
  to the embodied soul. But the point is
• 10:40
  this
• 10:42
  when someone dies or they're freed from
• 10:45
  the body, right? There's no longer a
• 10:47
  mediation process. So there is just pure
• 10:51
  thinking. There is no primary and
• 10:53
  secondary intelligibles as he would call
• 10:55
  it.
• 10:56
  >> The aboutness is gone. It just is.
• 10:59
  Right. So in other words, we are only in
• 11:02
  sold in so far as we are in the body.
• 11:05
  >> Oh
• 11:06
  >> yeah,
• 11:06
  >> I understand. And correct me if I'm
• 11:09
  wrong, in some ancient philosophies,
• 11:11
  they would distinguish between the soul
• 11:14
  and the spirit.
• 11:15
  >> Yes, of course. Yeah. Um, in general,
• 11:19
  the spirit, if we take it from Plato,
• 11:21
  Plato is a good one to look at. So, he
• 11:23
  would have said, you know, there is a
• 11:24
  spiritedness. So, this is the um desire
• 11:28
  for courage, honor, you know, elation
• 11:31
  for music and all that sort of thing.
• 11:33
  And then there is the intellect which is
• 11:36
  another part of the soul which is purely
• 11:39
  reason right and then of course he has
• 11:42
  the passions which is bodily desire. So
• 11:44
  he has this is the tripartite theory of
• 11:46
  the soul.
• 11:47
  >> So these three components come together
• 11:49
  but they are always governed by the
• 11:51
  intellect. So this Alfarabi was really
• 11:53
  reading into Plato quite literally
• 11:56
  taking the [clears throat] intellect to
• 11:57
  be the only true how do I say permanent
• 12:00
  entity if you like
• 12:02
  >> which side for philosophers to feel that
• 12:04
  way but I would imagine that in in the
• 12:07
  general population particularly in the
• 12:10
  ancient world they're not particularly
• 12:12
  concerned with the intellect.
• 12:14
  >> It depends how you define the intellect.
• 12:16
  I mean the Buddhist for example would
• 12:18
  not have an idea of the intellect or
• 12:22
  consciousness for the Buddhists as
• 12:24
  something that is you know primarily
• 12:28
  focused with truths
• 12:30
  >> um rational truths discursive truths for
• 12:33
  example higher geometrical principles or
• 12:35
  whatever for them it's just a form of
• 12:38
  awareness that brings everything into
• 12:40
  view
• 12:41
  >> right and so with the Buddhist
• 12:43
  traditions you know because they're So
• 12:46
  you know despar often you won't you'll
• 12:49
  find some of them that believe that you
• 12:50
  can have a consciousness free from the
• 12:52
  body and some that you won't.
• 12:54
  >> Mhm.
• 12:55
  >> So the message there is much more
• 12:57
  complicated. Right. But if we're
• 13:00
  speaking about intellect in the Greek
• 13:01
  sense we are talking primarily about the
• 13:04
  ability to make sense of the world. I
• 13:06
  >> mean they had Uklid he was already doing
• 13:09
  very rigorous geometry.
• 13:11
  >> That's right. Yeah. Yeah. And so
• 13:13
  geometry already was central to the
• 13:16
  tradition. It was the highest form of
• 13:17
  reason to a large extent. Um discursive
• 13:21
  reason danoi as Plato would call it. Now
• 13:24
  I suppose this is it's an important
• 13:26
  thing to have brought up Uklid because
• 13:28
  Plato would have distinguished this
• 13:30
  geometrical um truths from a higher
• 13:33
  truth he calls an oasis or
• 13:35
  understanding. Mhm. So other thinkers,
• 13:39
  later thinkers, later interpreters of
• 13:41
  Plato would have understood Plato to
• 13:43
  mean that geometrical principles they
• 13:46
  apply in so far as we're talking about
• 13:48
  matter.
• 13:50
  >> So once you leave the world of matter
• 13:52
  and it becomes incorporal, these
• 13:53
  geometrical principles are perfect. So
• 13:56
  much so there is no longer calculation
• 13:57
  at work.
• 13:58
  >> Mhm.
• 13:59
  >> And this is what entails when you have
• 14:01
  noises or understanding. There's no
• 14:04
  longer calculation at work.
• 14:06
  >> That's right.
• 14:07
  >> Mean they didn't have mathematics
• 14:10
  independent of the physical world.
• 14:12
  >> They had higher mathematical forms
• 14:15
  >> but they are not calculated at this
• 14:17
  point. They are complete.
• 14:20
  >> Mhm.
• 14:20
  >> Right. This is also a Pythagorian sense.
• 14:23
  In the Buddhist worldview, you have
• 14:25
  similar ideas when they talk about
• 14:28
  consciousness that is you know uh based
• 14:32
  primarily on conceptual proliferation as
• 14:35
  in carving up the world into bits and
• 14:37
  parts and to make meaning of it
• 14:39
  >> is already a form of clinging a clinging
• 14:42
  on to the world.
• 14:43
  >> So it's already convoluted by desires
• 14:46
  and things like this. So you can never
• 14:48
  make an inference that is ever going to
• 14:50
  be complete in itself because you're
• 14:52
  already clinging on with bodily desires
• 14:54
  and everything else.
• 14:55
  >> So in the Buddhist tradition, desires
• 14:57
  are considered undesirable.
• 15:00
  >> Absolutely. That's the central message,
• 15:02
  right? Is to overcome all bodily desire
• 15:05
  because that is what perpetuates
• 15:06
  suffering. And in other traditions, I
• 15:10
  gather, I've certainly heard it these
• 15:12
  days, people would say, you know, to be
• 15:15
  full of desire is to be soulful. Well,
• 15:18
  you know what? That's an actually really
• 15:20
  good statement because even Plato would
• 15:23
  agree with this because that what's
• 15:24
  that's what happens when you're in soul.
• 15:26
  You are filled with desire because once
• 15:29
  the soul is freed from the body and if
• 15:32
  we take this narrative of it being
• 15:33
  intellect pure, [clears throat]
• 15:35
  >> intellect proper, then it no longer has
• 15:38
  desire,
• 15:40
  right? It's in a consistent state of
• 15:42
  bliss, happiness.
• 15:44
  >> It no longer has a hiccup in that which
• 15:47
  it desires. It already has it. It's
• 15:49
  complete.
• 15:50
  >> Well, that sounds nice from a
• 15:52
  philosophical point of view. I would say
• 15:56
  uh from the point of view of I'll call
• 15:58
  it parasychological folklore, we hear a
• 16:02
  lot about hungry ghosts and I'm sure
• 16:05
  that you find that in the Buddhist
• 16:07
  tradition
• 16:08
  as well. The idea that disembodied souls
• 16:12
  are sometimes uh filled with the desires
• 16:16
  for their former life for for whatever
• 16:19
  habits or addictions or attractions they
• 16:22
  once had. Yeah, I mean this is a very
• 16:25
  good point also. So when you're in a
• 16:28
  current life for the Buddhists, you can
• 16:31
  cultivate a you can cultivate such a
• 16:35
  strong desire for certain things that
• 16:37
  they actually extend into the subsequent
• 16:39
  incarnation or rebirth.
• 16:41
  >> Right. So it sort of forms an illusory
• 16:43
  identity that moves between lives.
• 16:46
  >> We've talked about the the notion of
• 16:48
  samscaras.
• 16:49
  >> That's right. Yeah. So uh in effect you
• 16:53
  know I think also this brings me to your
• 16:56
  essay on you know the survival of uh you
• 16:59
  know bodily death.
• 17:03
  >> From what I gather from the essay the
• 17:05
  tricky point is distinguishing
• 17:07
  what it is that actually survives.
• 17:10
  >> So you accept that something survives.
• 17:12
  >> I accept that something survives and
• 17:15
  that it does have desire.
• 17:18
  >> That's right. Okay. So it is the
• 17:20
  principle of individuation that's really
• 17:22
  the tricky point, isn't it? So trying to
• 17:25
  distinguish what it is that preserves
• 17:27
  after you die.
• 17:29
  >> So this is also what you see in you know
• 17:33
  uh the Buddhist tradition they would say
• 17:34
  well it's not really the body that
• 17:36
  survives. It's you know the maintenance
• 17:39
  of karmic residue.
• 17:41
  >> Karmic residue being itself based on
• 17:43
  cleanings of prior lives. So this is
• 17:47
  pretty much consistent with
• 17:48
  parasychological data points because if
• 17:51
  individuation is going to survive in the
• 17:53
  next life
• 17:55
  >> it's based on things that were important
• 17:57
  in that life.
• 17:58
  >> I would agree.
• 18:00
  >> Yeah.
• 18:00
  >> Yeah. And it makes perfectly sense. So
• 18:03
  um now if we talk about u imagining soul
• 18:10
  >> let's say free from conceptual
• 18:12
  proliferation and why they talk about it
• 18:15
  as consistent state of bliss. Well, we
• 18:18
  can imagine that you know the Buddhists
• 18:22
  developed this meditative tradition of
• 18:24
  stealing the mind, right? By stealing
• 18:27
  the mind, you no longer have let's say
• 18:31
  um
• 18:34
  anchors from which you are going to
• 18:36
  desire another thing. So let's say for
• 18:39
  example you are hungry and you satisfy
• 18:41
  your hunger, you're going to get hungry
• 18:43
  again.
• 18:43
  >> Mhm. [clears throat]
• 18:44
  >> Right. So the idea is that you are
• 18:46
  silencing all desire but still staying
• 18:50
  aware.
• 18:51
  >> Mhm.
• 18:51
  >> So the Buddhists believe you can do this
• 18:53
  in in the embodied life.
• 18:55
  >> Yeah.
• 18:55
  >> Right. So if you can do this in embodied
• 18:57
  life and we use that as evidence then we
• 19:00
  can talk about a unadulterated
• 19:02
  awareness.
• 19:04
  For example, I've interviewed in the
• 19:06
  past a vapina teacher named Shinszen
• 19:10
  Young
• 19:11
  >> uh who talked about his wife was a
• 19:13
  heroin addict and through meditation she
• 19:17
  learned that
• 19:19
  she wasn't the addiction. The addiction
• 19:22
  was just a a a thought accompanied by
• 19:26
  certain either desires or aversions and
• 19:29
  she could separate herself from it. And
• 19:32
  that way she freed herself from the
• 19:35
  addiction.
• 19:36
  >> Yes, that's right. And so the good news
• 19:38
  I suppose with the Buddhist perspective
• 19:40
  is that you are not your desires.
• 19:42
  >> Yes.
• 19:43
  >> Right. But in the same time you have to
• 19:46
  take this all the way through and
• 19:48
  understand that you are not a self.
• 19:51
  >> That's very interesting. It's a core
• 19:53
  concept in Buddhism.
• 19:54
  >> That's right. Anat right in Sanskrit. So
• 19:57
  the idea is that you are not any one
• 20:00
  form of consciousness, right? You're
• 20:03
  none of your senses. You are none of
• 20:05
  your um aggregates, your mental
• 20:07
  formations, your feelings. None of that
• 20:09
  is you. What you are is on a fundamental
• 20:12
  level, if you are to say you're anything
• 20:14
  is you're a lif stream. You are
• 20:18
  basically traversing from one life to
• 20:20
  the other based on what you cling to,
• 20:24
  >> right? based on what consciousness
• 20:26
  itself clings to which in itself gives
• 20:29
  rise to karmic residue.
• 20:30
  >> Yeah.
• 20:31
  >> Right.
• 20:32
  >> It's a beautiful vision I think.
• 20:34
  >> Yeah. Well, it's great because you know
• 20:36
  um it doesn't make life seem like it's
• 20:40
  pointless. I mean you you can come back
• 20:42
  into the subsequent life for other
• 20:45
  reasons,
• 20:46
  >> right? It doesn't just have to be
• 20:48
  negative bodily desired clinging. But at
• 20:50
  the at the end of the day, I'm pretty
• 20:52
  sure that the the Buddhist notion of
• 20:55
  anata is diametrically opposed to the
• 20:58
  Judeo-Christian idea of an eternal soul.
• 21:02
  >> Absolutely. Yeah. So, this is where the
• 21:04
  two traditions differ. Right. So, of
• 21:07
  course, you know, like I said with the
• 21:10
  Greeks, it's not so decisive that they
• 21:13
  have a concrete entity to soul. Mh. I
• 21:16
  mean the the Christians certainly read
• 21:18
  them as saying that that is the case but
• 21:20
  it isn't so much. Um whereas the
• 21:23
  Buddhists they take this as a starting
• 21:25
  point and they do this because
• 21:28
  they want to to narrow in meditation to
• 21:31
  the point where you no longer are aware
• 21:35
  of externals. So you're silencing. They
• 21:39
  are seeking that silencing.
• 21:41
  >> Right? So in so doing you have to
• 21:43
  silence quite literally every aspect of
• 21:45
  human experience.
• 21:47
  >> But the ultimately positive message of
• 21:50
  this is that it is not annihilation.
• 21:52
  This is what frightens a lot of people.
• 21:54
  They think about oblivion
• 21:56
  >> right
• 21:56
  >> or an abyss. It's not
• 21:58
  >> for the Buddhists. The idea is if you do
• 22:00
  silence all of this it is an
• 22:03
  unimaginable bliss.
• 22:05
  >> Yeah.
• 22:06
  >> Perfection. You know
• 22:07
  >> I think I've heard the term
• 22:09
  spaciousness. Yeah, spaciousness. I mean
• 22:13
  uh you know
• 22:16
  the evolution of the idea this nirvana
• 22:18
  or nibbana in in Pali in the original
• 22:20
  sense has undergone so much you know ev
• 22:24
  so much of change
• 22:26
  >> Buddhists don't really know how to
• 22:28
  characterize it. It seems the oldest if
• 22:30
  we'd go back to the you know to the can
• 22:32
  to the tippetaka
• 22:34
  it's basically complete cessation
• 22:37
  >> sessation of awareness such that even
• 22:40
  consciousness of the gods because they
• 22:42
  do have realms of gods that in itself is
• 22:45
  some form of clinging
• 22:47
  >> hanging on which means that it does
• 22:49
  involve some unfulfilling
• 22:52
  aspect right so if we remove even that
• 22:55
  highest grade of awareness for the
• 22:58
  Buddhist S it is pure bliss. The far
• 23:01
  shore is what he calls it. You know
• 23:03
  often the far shore the unseen.
• 23:06
  >> I gather the Hindus have a similar idea.
• 23:09
  >> Yeah the Hindu Hindus do. I mean again
• 23:11
  the Hindu tradition is so varied in
• 23:14
  scope. But the Hindus I would say would
• 23:17
  mostly you know equate this this if you
• 23:20
  want to call it with the truth of the
• 23:21
  Brahman.
• 23:22
  >> Mhm.
• 23:23
  >> So in some sense you are the world in
• 23:25
  its totality.
• 23:27
  You are everything.
• 23:28
  >> Yeah. You are this self and the real
• 23:30
  self.
• 23:30
  >> The the equation atman equals brahman.
• 23:34
  >> Exactly. Of course, I would say the I
• 23:36
  would say that Sedata's message
• 23:40
  um is much more radical, you know,
• 23:43
  because he's talking about absolute
• 23:44
  sessation. So, it's totally
• 23:46
  transcendent.
• 23:47
  >> The idea that we are one with
• 23:49
  everything, isn't it practically
• 23:52
  equivalent to say we we are nothing?
• 23:55
  >> Yeah. That's but that's basically the
• 23:57
  Buddhist formula. Yeah. Yeah. That means
• 23:59
  you are everything and nothing
• 24:01
  simultaneously.
• 24:02
  >> Mhm.
• 24:03
  >> Yeah. So this by the way is the later
• 24:05
  development of the Mahayana tradition.
• 24:07
  This is basically the core concept they
• 24:09
  develop.
• 24:09
  >> Mhm.
• 24:10
  >> Right. So they bring in this idea that u
• 24:14
  you are enlightened already. You just
• 24:16
  haven't realized it. So nirvana is
• 24:18
  already always the case. But for the
• 24:21
  Greeks with the emphasis on on the
• 24:24
  rationality as being the the core
• 24:27
  principle, the logos which I guess is
• 24:30
  incorporated into Christianity as well
• 24:32
  in the gospel of John.
• 24:35
  Uh that's very different.
• 24:37
  >> Absolutely. So here's where it's
• 24:40
  different. Right. So for the Greeks
• 24:43
  there is this idea that the more you
• 24:45
  cultivate reason
• 24:48
  the more free you become right. So the
• 24:52
  higher your rationality the more
• 24:54
  intellect you become.
• 24:56
  >> So much so is that you can define
• 24:58
  philosophy as Plato does as practicing
• 25:02
  death while being alive
• 25:05
  so that the body no longer stands in the
• 25:07
  way. So you develop higher orders of
• 25:11
  geometry to that effect. It is
• 25:14
  sillogical. It's salvific to gain higher
• 25:17
  grades of knowledge.
• 25:19
  >> Right? This isn't the case in in
• 25:20
  Buddhism because the idea there is that
• 25:23
  any conceptual framework is a form of
• 25:25
  clinging. Concepts themselves don't
• 25:27
  exist. They are themselves empty.
• 25:30
  >> Whereas for Plato and the Greeks in
• 25:32
  general, it's not the case. Isn't there
• 25:35
  the notion
• 25:37
  and I don't know historically where it
• 25:39
  begins. Diana yoga the idea that you can
• 25:42
  achieve enlightenment by thinking your
• 25:44
  way there.
• 25:46
  >> Yeah. I mean that was the originally a
• 25:48
  lot of the Buddhist traditions. They
• 25:49
  figured that you would have to develop
• 25:52
  sufficient conceptual understanding
• 25:54
  before you can position yourself
• 25:57
  in a way as to allow for enlightenment
• 25:59
  to occur. [clears throat]
• 26:00
  >> This is by the way still central to to
• 26:02
  Tibetan Buddhism. There are many major
• 26:04
  figures that develop this idea that you
• 26:05
  have to understand what it is you're
• 26:07
  doing before you get into meditation.
• 26:10
  That also means that all knowledge
• 26:11
  pursued is always pursued in favor of
• 26:14
  enlightenment. That is the ultimate
• 26:15
  goal.
• 26:16
  >> Mhm. [clears throat]
• 26:16
  >> Right. It's not so different in that
• 26:18
  context from the Greeks. But the Greeks
• 26:20
  do see that there is a um you know there
• 26:24
  is a utility to knowledge as well. I
• 26:26
  mean you transform the world as well.
• 26:28
  Mhm.
• 26:28
  >> So, so in seeking salvation transforms
• 26:32
  the world also together. This is also
• 26:35
  unique to the Greek tradition. So,
• 26:37
  sciences are so theological.
• 26:39
  >> Well, now you've introduced the word
• 26:41
  salvation. Is that a Greek idea?
• 26:44
  >> Uh, well, no, that's probably a you
• 26:47
  know, Judeo-Christian idea.
• 26:49
  >> Um, but of course it has Greek roots,
• 26:52
  sortology. So, it seeks, you know,
• 26:54
  liberation or freedom in the ultimate
• 26:57
  sense. Um but this idea of salvation
• 27:00
  with esquetology and everything is more
• 27:02
  Judeo-Christian. Yeah.
• 27:04
  >> And also since we're talking about
• 27:06
  language,
• 27:07
  >> I think it's interesting that in the
• 27:10
  18th century we had this notion in
• 27:13
  Europe of the enlightenment.
• 27:16
  >> And it seems to be as I understand it
• 27:20
  from what little I know of history, it
• 27:22
  had to do with the the rational mind.
• 27:25
  people were really developing a lot of
• 27:28
  rational ideas and of course challenging
• 27:31
  older world views through through the
• 27:34
  viewpoint of rationality and that was
• 27:37
  considered enlightened very different I
• 27:39
  think from the Buddhist idea of
• 27:41
  enlightenment but it does seem now that
• 27:44
  you we're talking about it to be
• 27:46
  consistent with the Greek notion of the
• 27:49
  intellect.
• 27:50
  >> Yeah. I mean look this is I mean the
• 27:52
  scope has just suddenly broadened a lot.
• 27:55
  [laughter]
• 27:56
  Um but it is a very important discussion
• 27:58
  for soul for a number of reasons.
• 28:00
  >> I mean from the philosophical
• 28:02
  perspective
• 28:04
  um the enlightenment can be said to
• 28:05
  begin perhaps with Decart right and
• 28:08
  Decart of course I think therefore I am
• 28:11
  is the first person I know this is being
• 28:13
  resounded over and over to have
• 28:15
  developed the distinction between the
• 28:17
  subject and the object. Right now the
• 28:19
  enlightenment as such is actually a
• 28:21
  greater historical movement. It it you
• 28:23
  know it basically works off the
• 28:26
  discoveries of the scientific revolution
• 28:28
  and the period of the renaissance before
• 28:31
  it. The idea is there is this triumph of
• 28:33
  reason.
• 28:34
  >> Mhm.
• 28:34
  >> Right. But the reason that we have at
• 28:37
  work here is not the salvific kind that
• 28:40
  you had with the Greeks.
• 28:42
  >> So it is a reason that is primarily
• 28:44
  developed for the purpose of utility.
• 28:46
  Mhm.
• 28:47
  >> So it's for the freedom of man, so to
• 28:49
  speak. You know, that's what the
• 28:51
  Renaissance was always about, right? So,
• 28:54
  you know, when we bring this idea into
• 28:56
  enlightenment, what we see then is that
• 28:59
  um everything else goes into the back
• 29:01
  burner, right? So, suddenly we no longer
• 29:04
  need higher questions, higher orders.
• 29:06
  All we need is to understand the world
• 29:08
  better because we are all subjects in
• 29:10
  this world that's seemingly chaotic
• 29:13
  >> and we're trying to understand it and
• 29:14
  unpack it, you know, so as to live a
• 29:16
  more comfortable life. And also I gather
• 29:20
  the the notion of overthrowing
• 29:22
  monarchies, developing a more
• 29:25
  enlightened democracies of course
• 29:28
  emerged from it. It had enormous
• 29:30
  political implications
• 29:32
  >> of course and actually we can even say
• 29:34
  that this is perhaps the proper you know
• 29:38
  individuation of soul on the historical
• 29:40
  level because every human being suddenly
• 29:42
  becomes a true permanent entity with an
• 29:44
  internal soul that has a reason as to
• 29:47
  why he or she is in this world right so
• 29:51
  the um you know the system of laws must
• 29:54
  reflect that politics must reflect that
• 29:57
  that's why democracy was eventually you
• 29:59
  know, inevitable.
• 30:00
  >> And in the United States, the
• 30:02
  Declaration of Independence
• 30:05
  >> seems to have emerged from these
• 30:06
  enlightenment ideas.
• 30:08
  >> That's right. Yeah. So now, if we
• 30:11
  understand this in its historical, you
• 30:13
  know, uh, you know, positioning, we see
• 30:16
  how radically different our
• 30:17
  understanding of soul has gone, you
• 30:20
  know, throughout the ages. There is I
• 30:21
  think a very good chapter it might be if
• 30:23
  I remember this correctly by Alistister
• 30:25
  McIntyre I think he called it the uh in
• 30:28
  his after virtue he talks about uh the
• 30:32
  heroic city I think it is and anyway he
• 30:36
  speaks about the Greeks in the sense
• 30:37
  that they did not understand themselves
• 30:39
  as different from their society. Mhm.
• 30:41
  >> So [clears throat] if someone committed
• 30:42
  a crime, they were given the option
• 30:44
  between execution or exile. And almost
• 30:47
  all Greeks would pick execution because
• 30:50
  nothing frightened them more than being
• 30:52
  exiled into something which they would
• 30:55
  consider a nothingness,
• 30:57
  non-belongingness
• 30:58
  because for them they already call
• 31:00
  extensively Greek society. They
• 31:02
  understand individuality in that
• 31:03
  conventional sense. So this is a very
• 31:06
  interesting anchor. I mean I don't know
• 31:07
  if McIntyre is you know uh completely
• 31:10
  right but there is on the philosophical
• 31:12
  level much credence to this thought
• 31:14
  >> and sociological even today we see
• 31:17
  people in cults who are afraid to leave
• 31:21
  the cult because their identity is so
• 31:24
  wrapped up in it. The philosophical
• 31:27
  perspective I think is a little bit more
• 31:28
  nuanced in that they track all of this
• 31:30
  not to some sociological phenomena. Not
• 31:33
  to for example a character of a people
• 31:35
  so much but more towards which everyone
• 31:38
  has seemingly the same ability to
• 31:43
  comprehend
• 31:44
  problems
• 31:45
  >> and to solve them. That's why they
• 31:47
  really like mathematics because it
• 31:50
  seemed universal. Another one example
• 31:52
  they really liked was astronomy.
• 31:55
  Everybody saw the same celestial
• 31:56
  movements, right? And so for them, this
• 31:59
  was evidence of a higher order.
• 32:02
  >> It was the only evidence. In fact, this
• 32:04
  this idea that things make sense, things
• 32:06
  can be made intelligible, right? For
• 32:09
  them, emotions, responses to certain
• 32:11
  pains and and joys, all of these things
• 32:14
  are not consistent.
• 32:15
  >> The world of the body, the world of
• 32:18
  emotions as opposed to the world of the
• 32:22
  intellect. We can use the example for of
• 32:25
  Mino Socrates amino when he teaches the
• 32:28
  slave boy who apparently has no training
• 32:31
  in geometry.
• 32:32
  >> Mino is the slave boy.
• 32:33
  >> No, it's the dialogue name. The slave
• 32:35
  boy is given no name.
• 32:37
  >> Typical of the Greeks of course during
• 32:39
  the time.
• 32:40
  >> Um and so in any case u Socrates
• 32:44
  illustrates that all knowledge is
• 32:46
  actually recollection a remembering.
• 32:48
  Mhm.
• 32:48
  >> And he illustrates this by you know
• 32:50
  drawing up a very basic square and then
• 32:53
  shows and you know explains to the boy
• 32:56
  only with a certain amount a little
• 32:58
  nudge
• 32:59
  >> right how to work out how to double the
• 33:01
  square
• 33:02
  >> right and then he you know explains
• 33:05
  later on you see I didn't really teach
• 33:08
  him anything he he remembered he's a
• 33:10
  slave boy now there are deep underlying
• 33:12
  message here that Plato is anti-slavery
• 33:14
  what not we can take that direction but
• 33:16
  the point is that all of awareness,
• 33:19
  intellect already harbors this ability
• 33:22
  to make sense of the world and
• 33:24
  mathematics, geometrical principles are
• 33:26
  the pinnacle of this.
• 33:27
  >> It doesn't sound so different from the
• 33:31
  idea you were expressing attached to
• 33:33
  Mahayana Buddhism that we're already
• 33:36
  enlightened.
• 33:37
  >> That's right. Yeah. So, I mean, in that
• 33:39
  sense of remembering, yes, I would say
• 33:41
  that's the case. In fact, if we look at
• 33:44
  what they understand to be the chief
• 33:47
  obstacle towards enlightenment, it is
• 33:49
  ignorance.
• 33:50
  >> Mhm.
• 33:50
  >> Right. The way they use the Sanskrit
• 33:52
  term of ignorance is actually unnowledge
• 33:56
  or non-wisdom.
• 33:58
  >> Right? And so this idea that once you
• 34:01
  remove ignorance, you suddenly have
• 34:03
  knowledge and you have wisdom and you
• 34:05
  truly understand.
• 34:07
  >> Isn't there something else though? Um
• 34:10
  the word dooka comes to mind.
• 34:12
  >> Yeah. That's suffering. Right. So dooka
• 34:14
  is the fundamental fact of experience.
• 34:18
  >> It's part and parcel of dependent
• 34:19
  origination that everything comes to be
• 34:22
  and everything passes away on and on
• 34:25
  forever in so far as you are conscious
• 34:27
  in so far as you cling. Right? That's
• 34:30
  the world the Buddhist worldview. Mh.
• 34:32
  >> And so in other words, to overcome this,
• 34:34
  you have to stop clinging so that
• 34:36
  there's no longer this consistent eb and
• 34:38
  flaw.
• 34:39
  >> I think in and I'm just referring now to
• 34:42
  contemporary society. It's often
• 34:45
  suggested that we develop soulfulness
• 34:49
  through suffering.
• 34:50
  >> Yeah, that's right. I mean, this is this
• 34:52
  is actually this is actually the
• 34:54
  phenomena of the modern world,
• 34:57
  >> right? So through suffering, through
• 34:59
  clinging, through desire, we ens the
• 35:02
  world, but we also give it meaning.
• 35:03
  >> Yeah.
• 35:04
  >> Right. So a perfect example is that why
• 35:07
  do we enjoy tragedy?
• 35:08
  >> Tragedy is considered the highest art
• 35:11
  form.
• 35:11
  >> Exactly. Right. But tragedy is quite
• 35:14
  literally take it in the sense of the
• 35:15
  word. It is a tragedy. It's suffering.
• 35:17
  It's pain. But it gives us this sense of
• 35:21
  feeling that that makes meaning uh
• 35:24
  present in life. I've often felt that,
• 35:27
  you know, the great tragedies of
• 35:28
  Shakespeare
• 35:30
  are ones that in one way or another seem
• 35:34
  to express the nobility of the human
• 35:36
  spirit in the face of suffering.
• 35:39
  >> Yeah. I mean that is that's one
• 35:42
  excellent way of looking at it. Um but
• 35:44
  you of course you can take this down the
• 35:46
  route of the Buddhist perspective. We
• 35:47
  can take it through Shopenhau for
• 35:49
  example.
• 35:50
  >> Shopenhau would speak about the sublime.
• 35:52
  We enjoy tragedy because it's sublime.
• 35:54
  >> And what happens when there is this
• 35:56
  sublime, right? He uses for example the
• 35:58
  moon is that for a moment, right, you
• 36:02
  are so captivated by your insignificance
• 36:06
  that your any sense of individuality
• 36:08
  just drops off.
• 36:09
  >> Mhm.
• 36:09
  >> And for that moment you are in a period
• 36:11
  of elation,
• 36:12
  >> right? You're free from everything else
• 36:14
  that makes you suffer.
• 36:16
  >> Right. So that is also another way of
• 36:19
  explaining this. You brought up the
• 36:21
  moon, did you?
• 36:22
  >> Yeah. Yeah. So, he really likes the moon
• 36:25
  and he uses, you know, basically, you
• 36:28
  know, landscapes, things that are beyond
• 36:30
  the human.
• 36:31
  >> Mhm.
• 36:32
  >> Right. Like, for example, a really high
• 36:33
  mountain peak in the middle of winter,
• 36:36
  snow cap, that sort of thing.
• 36:38
  >> There's also the idea of, again, going
• 36:42
  back to the emotions. The moon seems to
• 36:44
  govern emotions.
• 36:47
  >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean this is a very old
• 36:48
  idea and we spoke about this briefly at
• 36:50
  lunch. Um to be honest for me it's a
• 36:53
  very fascinating topic. I am not so sure
• 36:55
  as to why they picked the moon
• 36:57
  >> but I do know that they do pick this. I
• 36:59
  mean this goes back to the middle ages.
• 37:01
  >> Um you know principally it's because
• 37:05
  when you have an astronomy an early form
• 37:07
  of astronomy and you notice that the
• 37:09
  moon is perfectly cyclical. It's always
• 37:11
  you know going around the earth. Mhm.
• 37:13
  >> They figure that there's some meaning to
• 37:14
  this and they attach metaphysical
• 37:16
  principles to it.
• 37:17
  >> Yeah.
• 37:18
  >> Right. For example, you know, like I
• 37:20
  mentioned Al Farabi earlier, he called
• 37:21
  it the active intellect.
• 37:23
  >> Right. So the sub lunar world is
• 37:25
  imperfect whereas the super luna world
• 37:29
  is perfect.
• 37:30
  >> Oh
• 37:31
  >> yeah.
• 37:31
  >> Well, it would also seem to have
• 37:33
  something to do with the masculine and
• 37:35
  the feminine.
• 37:37
  >> Yeah. Well, that I wouldn't know. I mean
• 37:40
  the moon is often correlated with the
• 37:42
  female menstrual cycles.
• 37:44
  >> That's right. Yeah.
• 37:46
  >> Yeah.
• 37:46
  >> The moon governs the tides.
• 37:49
  >> Yeah.
• 37:49
  >> And and water water is associated with
• 37:52
  the emotions.
• 37:54
  >> Yeah. I mean from the middle ages
• 37:57
  perspective it certainly had a placeh.
• 37:59
  >> It it you know the reason why a lot of
• 38:01
  these philosophers would have called it
• 38:03
  the active intellect is because it does
• 38:04
  these things. It seems to govern the
• 38:07
  terrestrial world. it seems to impact
• 38:09
  almost everything.
• 38:10
  >> Mhm.
• 38:11
  >> So that was I suppose the reason why
• 38:13
  they attached a lot of these
• 38:14
  metaphysical principles to it. Um but
• 38:17
  overcoming the moon meant you know no
• 38:19
  longer being governed by the moon. So
• 38:22
  you're no longer subject to let's say
• 38:23
  the tides as you say. It's hard to
• 38:26
  discuss the soul without also bringing
• 38:30
  up Carl Jung and Yungian psychology and
• 38:33
  his notion of thema which I gather for
• 38:37
  in Yungian thought for for males the
• 38:40
  soul is feminine and and for females I
• 38:44
  think the idea is it's an animus they
• 38:47
  they have a masculine soul.
• 38:49
  >> Certainly with the Greeks they wouldn't
• 38:51
  have had a gender to soul. Mhm.
• 38:53
  >> Um it would have overcome all bodily
• 38:56
  function altogether right
• 38:58
  >> um so you know the later theories is
• 39:01
  that it's self moved for example it
• 39:04
  doesn't have principles of corporal
• 39:06
  motion you know it's free it exists in
• 39:09
  the sense that it is just thought pure
• 39:12
  thought so [clears throat] these things
• 39:14
  don't require gender it's not
• 39:15
  reproducing in that sense
• 39:17
  >> Jung regarded his soul as as like a
• 39:21
  being and and He there's a passage it
• 39:24
  came up in an interview recently where
• 39:26
  from Jung's own diaries where he's
• 39:29
  referring to his soul and he's saying I
• 39:32
  made a terrible mistake. I treated you
• 39:34
  as an object of study instead of as a a
• 39:39
  teacher, a guide, a companion. I need to
• 39:41
  learn from you. Please teach me.
• 39:44
  >> Of course, he had this archetype, you
• 39:46
  know, the archetypes that is always, you
• 39:47
  know, guiding his thought. [sighs]
• 39:49
  >> Um, yeah. Look, I mean, I don't have
• 39:52
  much to say about KL Jung's perspective.
• 39:54
  I think he was beholden to the idea that
• 39:55
  soul was an entity.
• 39:57
  >> Mhm.
• 39:57
  >> And that it did somehow, you know, have
• 40:02
  an extra bodily life.
• 40:05
  But I'm not sure he developed that
• 40:06
  theory completely.
• 40:08
  Um I'm not sure he had a concrete
• 40:10
  understanding himself.
• 40:12
  >> No, I suppose he left it at at the level
• 40:15
  of it's an archetype.
• 40:16
  >> Yeah, I think so. But then then
• 40:19
  archetypes themselves seem to be a very
• 40:23
  powerful concept that that is still
• 40:26
  eluding us.
• 40:27
  >> Well, this is not really my area of
• 40:29
  expertise, but I see this a lot in in uh
• 40:32
  a lot of scientists that breach into
• 40:34
  this topics. For example, you know, you
• 40:35
  have the morphic field of Rupert Shre,
• 40:38
  >> right? It's not so different, right?
• 40:40
  >> The morphic field.
• 40:41
  >> Yeah. The morphic field, how the morphic
• 40:43
  resonance works,
• 40:44
  >> right? Um well to me it seems like you
• 40:47
  know a lot of contemporary science is
• 40:50
  trying to make sense of [sighs]
• 40:53
  um a incorporal form of awareness
• 40:57
  >> an awareness that is not restricted by
• 40:59
  bodily you know function
• 41:01
  >> I would say the paranormal but
• 41:03
  >> the paranormal yes absolutely yeah
• 41:05
  >> um but to be honest it only makes sense
• 41:08
  because you know if we are to look from
• 41:10
  the perspective of soul right I'm a
• 41:12
  product of how many generations before
• 41:14
  me as are you. [clears throat]
• 41:16
  >> And there is some consistency between
• 41:18
  generations, right? We bring a world
• 41:20
  with us, you know, along the way. We're
• 41:23
  bringing a world a world that can be
• 41:25
  made sense of in much the same way.
• 41:27
  Mathematical principles that work today
• 41:29
  work 500 years ago, right? So there is
• 41:33
  some consistency to this. And so if the
• 41:35
  world is consistently changing, but
• 41:38
  these principles don't, you would have
• 41:41
  to automatically infer that it already
• 41:43
  persists. Well, the soul though is a
• 41:45
  principle that does change. We've gone
• 41:47
  from the eternal soul to the anata to
• 41:52
  from the all to the nothing. It actually
• 41:55
  does remind me of the yin-yang uh logo
• 41:59
  for this channel that everything
• 42:01
  contains within it the seat of its own
• 42:03
  opposite.
• 42:04
  >> Yeah, that's right. I mean, so what I
• 42:07
  would say is that our understanding of
• 42:09
  the self
• 42:10
  >> has varied extensively throughout
• 42:12
  history. Yeah.
• 42:13
  >> Right. But what hasn't changed is
• 42:15
  awareness the way we engage the world.
• 42:18
  >> Right. So we still maintain this sort of
• 42:22
  you know to me the fundamental pre
• 42:26
  predisposition would be the desire to
• 42:29
  make sense of the world. But when I say
• 42:31
  the world I I think I mean even more
• 42:34
  more expansive like existence.
• 42:36
  >> Mhm.
• 42:37
  >> There is there seems to be this angst to
• 42:39
  consciousness itself that it wants to
• 42:41
  know itself. Yeah.
• 42:43
  >> Which of course Kant made very famous by
• 42:45
  saying reason cannot extend beyond
• 42:47
  itself.
• 42:48
  >> Right. He recognized this. Right. And of
• 42:51
  course you mentioned duka.
• 42:53
  >> Mhm.
• 42:53
  >> Um only recently we started scholars
• 42:56
  have started to think well duka actually
• 42:58
  means unease. Normally it was understood
• 43:01
  as just suffering you know straight out.
• 43:03
  But it's not necessarily the case. It
• 43:05
  means you know unease unfulfillment.
• 43:09
  there is this desire to complete
• 43:12
  something. It seems to me that this is
• 43:14
  what is fundamental to existence itself,
• 43:17
  this awareness, right?
• 43:19
  >> And um it seems consistent throughout
• 43:22
  history.
• 43:23
  >> Although I accept the scientific data
• 43:25
  pointing to an afterlife, there is this
• 43:28
  sense that if if I were to die right
• 43:31
  now,
• 43:34
  there would be lots of things in my life
• 43:37
  that would be incomplete.
• 43:39
  Yeah. And so you would imagine that this
• 43:42
  would have a carryover effect.
• 43:44
  >> Um in fact to my mind it would seem
• 43:48
  um it would seem irrational to suppose
• 43:50
  that it goes nowhere,
• 43:53
  >> right? Because that same desire is why
• 43:57
  you are here in the first place. And so
• 43:59
  when you're no longer here,
• 44:03
  how can it be that it just ends? Right?
• 44:05
  So that's the tricky point for me.
• 44:08
  But again, what it is that persists in
• 44:10
  the subsequent let's say let's call it
• 44:12
  rebirth. That's the tricky problem. How
• 44:14
  do we figure out what it is? [laughter]
• 44:17
  Well, and Buddhism is a very interesting
• 44:20
  example of of the fine edge of paradox
• 44:24
  that they uh seem to accept
• 44:26
  reincarnation but not the idea of a soul
• 44:29
  that reincarnates.
• 44:31
  >> That's right. So, and this is why they
• 44:33
  cultivate meditation. So for them the
• 44:37
  reason why you can for example recollect
• 44:39
  prior lives which is pardon you know
• 44:41
  parcel of the meditative tradition the
• 44:43
  supernowledges
• 44:46
  >> is because you are a no self in the
• 44:48
  first place. So when you meditate to a
• 44:50
  certain state of awareness you are
• 44:52
  tapping into a field of awareness which
• 44:55
  is your own lif stream. It's it's a
• 44:57
  karmic field that goes back countless
• 44:59
  lives.
• 45:00
  >> Is there a word for that?
• 45:02
  >> Which word? the live stream.
• 45:04
  >> Samati, I think.
• 45:06
  >> Yeah.
• 45:06
  >> Could you say that again?
• 45:07
  >> Samati.
• 45:09
  >> Yeah. You'll have to double check that.
• 45:11
  >> All right.
• 45:12
  >> So, it's continuity. That's the idea.
• 45:14
  It's a continuity. And so, when you
• 45:17
  meditate,
• 45:19
  right, and you suddenly have developed
• 45:21
  this high level of insight,
• 45:24
  >> you are freed from the constraints of
• 45:25
  the body which traps you only in
• 45:27
  conceptual proliferation. Suddenly
• 45:30
  you're able to recollect what was
• 45:32
  already making you present in this life.
• 45:36
  >> So you so the Buddha famously
• 45:37
  recollected all his pri in incarnations
• 45:40
  thousands millions of lives. Um and they
• 45:43
  do this on the basis of a no self.
• 45:45
  >> Mhm.
• 45:46
  >> Because you cannot recollect if you are
• 45:48
  the soul here and another soul there and
• 45:50
  another soul there. It's not the same.
• 45:52
  >> Well, but if you're one soul going all
• 45:55
  the way through, well, that's the life
• 45:57
  stream.
• 45:57
  >> That's right. Yeah, that would be the
• 45:59
  live stream. That's how you'd understand
• 46:00
  it.
• 46:01
  >> Well, let if if I may take you back to
• 46:03
  the Christian notion.
• 46:06
  Is it the case actually? Let see if we
• 46:09
  can pin it down that the let's take
• 46:12
  Aquinus. Does he accept the idea of an
• 46:15
  eternal soul?
• 46:17
  >> Yeah, he believes the soul is immortal.
• 46:19
  He's explicit about this. The best way
• 46:21
  to define it is that the soul is vition
• 46:24
  will accompanied by intellect. Mhm.
• 46:27
  [clears throat]
• 46:27
  >> Um so there is an equal balance between
• 46:30
  valition and intellect right or will
• 46:34
  when you die that soul basically goes to
• 46:38
  judgment and depending how you've lived
• 46:40
  your life if you lived your life he's
• 46:42
  Greek here in this sense if you're
• 46:43
  virtuous then your life would be
• 46:45
  rewarded
• 46:47
  >> because you understood rationality so
• 46:49
  you were prone to head towards reason
• 46:51
  >> even without the Christian context it's
• 46:53
  pretty much Greek
• 46:54
  >> but if let's say you lived a life
• 46:56
  without virtue then that's where you're
• 46:58
  headed you're headed towards suffering
• 47:00
  because virtue is irrational and
• 47:02
  irrationality is equivalent with
• 47:04
  suffering
• 47:05
  >> so he makes it very clear in that sense
• 47:07
  but it is eternal nonetheless
• 47:10
  mean if you have one lifetime and if you
• 47:13
  are not a a good person a good rational
• 47:16
  person you'll be condemned for all
• 47:19
  eternity to suffer
• 47:21
  >> whether it's for all eternity or not uh
• 47:24
  that's you know that's a bit difficult
• 47:26
  to answer but definitely you will go
• 47:29
  through some form of purgatory.
• 47:31
  >> Mhm.
• 47:31
  >> Right. There will be a process where you
• 47:33
  you you know slowly purify your soul
• 47:36
  from all the stains. In general the
• 47:38
  Christian tradition doesn't even accept
• 47:40
  a pre-bodily existence so that the soul
• 47:43
  is incipient with the body.
• 47:45
  >> Mhm.
• 47:46
  >> It becomes you know uh it's created as
• 47:50
  it were. Some Christian thinkers took
• 47:53
  exception to this. For example, people
• 47:54
  like Clement of Alexandria who was much
• 47:56
  much more earlier than Aquinas. He does
• 47:59
  speak of a pre-bodily existence, but he
• 48:01
  describes it as the intellect. He takes
• 48:02
  the Greek sense. So the intellect
• 48:04
  descends at some point and on the scent
• 48:07
  it assumes a body and that's where the
• 48:09
  soul comes to being.
• 48:10
  >> So the pre-existence of the soul is a
• 48:13
  controversial idea in Christianity.
• 48:16
  >> Absolutely. That is Yeah. And it's a
• 48:18
  very interesting one because the the
• 48:21
  subject matter of reincarnation or
• 48:23
  rebirth that's completely that's that's
• 48:25
  non-negotiable
• 48:26
  >> right
• 48:26
  >> in Christianity in general you won't
• 48:28
  have reincarnation but the the point
• 48:30
  about preexisting souls prior to the
• 48:33
  body that's a big one
• 48:35
  >> um more ancient uh Christians would have
• 48:38
  would have been more favorably
• 48:40
  predisposed to this idea but the later
• 48:43
  thinkers were not.
• 48:44
  >> Mhm. [clears throat] The Arabic thinkers
• 48:46
  like Al Farabi and Alkindi definitely
• 48:48
  were they because they were they were
• 48:51
  more pleness so to speak. So they
• 48:53
  basically said that the soul and the
• 48:55
  intellect are indistinguishable as we've
• 48:57
  already spoken about. So pre-existence
• 48:59
  already makes sense.
• 49:01
  >> But they also don't believe in
• 49:02
  reincarnation. For them it doesn't make
• 49:04
  sense that a body can be recycled.
• 49:08
  Right? So they think that the body's
• 49:10
  uniqueness is that one life. It's that
• 49:12
  [clears throat] one's sold life. They
• 49:14
  don't have a concept of resurrection.
• 49:17
  >> No, they have bodily resurrection in the
• 49:19
  sense of judgment day,
• 49:21
  >> right? Or the final day they call it.
• 49:24
  >> So they do have a concept of
• 49:26
  >> Yeah. But it's not typically the body as
• 49:28
  we understand it. It's really
• 49:31
  complicated because you know a lot of
• 49:33
  these Arabic thinkers who were more
• 49:35
  philosophers than they were pious
• 49:37
  Muslims, Iben Cena for example, would
• 49:38
  have said that this is all metaphorical
• 49:40
  >> and it's not quite resurrection that's
• 49:42
  at work. It is whatever's you know
• 49:45
  retained
• 49:46
  >> of the intellect while you were in this
• 49:48
  life.
• 49:48
  >> But when you talk to mymonities or other
• 49:52
  Christian thinkers when they speak of
• 49:55
  resurrection it's not so different from
• 49:58
  the idea we've been talking about the
• 50:01
  transhumanists
• 50:02
  being resurrected in a computer. It
• 50:05
  would be the the physical resurrection
• 50:07
  of the body atom by Adam.
• 50:09
  >> That's right. I mean my monities was
• 50:11
  famous because he was you know he was uh
• 50:14
  not necessarily a proponent of
• 50:15
  individuation being maintained after you
• 50:18
  die. He was about the active intellect
• 50:21
  um basically assuming whatever you
• 50:24
  whatever you live through back into
• 50:25
  itself and then you become one with the
• 50:27
  active intellect of humanity.
• 50:29
  >> Yeah.
• 50:30
  >> So it's not necessarily soul the way we
• 50:32
  understand in a conventional sense.
• 50:35
  >> Um but in the same time it is immortal.
• 50:38
  So there is something to it
• 50:41
  [clears throat]
• 50:41
  >> and um for me this seems to be the
• 50:43
  biggest challenge with understanding
• 50:44
  soul and why soul is such an interesting
• 50:46
  topic because
• 50:48
  in a general sense across the entire
• 50:51
  tradition or legacy of the western
• 50:53
  civilization is that something survives
• 50:56
  >> but is it individuated or not
• 50:59
  >> big question
• 51:00
  >> that's the big and I think that was
• 51:02
  actually where you landed with your
• 51:05
  essay in the end
• 51:06
  >> it is a big question but there are
• 51:07
  examples certainly that I bring up in my
• 51:11
  essay of for Dr. Lang, the uh eye
• 51:17
  surgeon who who died and was
• 51:19
  resurrected, you could say, in in the
• 51:22
  form of a spirit guide and conducted
• 51:25
  healings for decades
• 51:29
  and maintained his original identity to
• 51:32
  such an extent that Dr. Lang's daughter
• 51:35
  bequeafd a large portion of her estate
• 51:38
  when she died to the medium who was
• 51:40
  channeling her father.
• 51:42
  >> Yeah. Yeah. That's incredible. And of
• 51:44
  course, we can take Ian Stevenson's
• 51:46
  research
• 51:48
  that, you know, all these children that
• 51:50
  sort of they take up these memories
• 51:53
  >> with such meticulous detail. But then
• 51:55
  again, I don't think I'm not so beholden
• 51:58
  to the idea that this resolves the
• 52:00
  problem. It could [laughter]
• 52:02
  it could be just memories, right? It
• 52:04
  could be just, you know,
• 52:06
  >> yes, it could,
• 52:06
  >> you know, it's not necessarily that this
• 52:08
  soul ejected from this body,
• 52:10
  >> right?
• 52:11
  >> It's not so clear.
• 52:12
  >> It could be a transfer of memory, a
• 52:14
  transfer of information.
• 52:17
  >> Exactly. And this is what I think the
• 52:19
  Greeks were most likely, you know, a
• 52:22
  proponents of. Well, I don't think we
• 52:25
  can conclude our study or our
• 52:27
  examination of the concept of soul
• 52:29
  without referring to the fact that you
• 52:32
  just returned from a visit to Utah where
• 52:35
  you gave a lecture to the Mormon trans
• 52:40
  humanist association concerning the idea
• 52:44
  of the physical resurrection of the
• 52:46
  body.
• 52:47
  >> That's right. So, the Church of
• 52:49
  Latter-day Saints has a very interesting
• 52:52
  theology. if you want to call it that,
• 52:55
  whereby the world is eternal and human
• 52:58
  beings are also immortal.
• 53:01
  And so this whole idea that human beings
• 53:04
  are already on the path to God.
• 53:07
  >> So transhumanism is already basically
• 53:10
  consistent with this doctrine is just
• 53:11
  putting it to work in the real world.
• 53:14
  >> So for me, this was all really
• 53:16
  fascinating because they're effectively
• 53:18
  putting a religious framework into
• 53:20
  practice in the scientific domain.
• 53:23
  Right? Of course, they don't accept
• 53:25
  reincarnation, at least not from what I
• 53:27
  understand. They nonetheless accept that
• 53:30
  there is an immortal intelligence
• 53:33
  that is at work which can be cultivated
• 53:36
  in the life of the body. It's really
• 53:39
  fascinating stuff. So, we see that this
• 53:40
  is even, you know, this is a relatively
• 53:42
  modern religion.
• 53:44
  >> So, we see that this idea is, you know,
• 53:46
  still prevalent today. And if I recall
• 53:49
  correctly from the the advertisement uh
• 53:52
  for your lecture, you you argued that
• 53:55
  there is potentially a scriptural or a
• 53:59
  religious obligation that we have today
• 54:03
  to resurrect ourselves inside of
• 54:06
  computers.
• 54:07
  >> Yeah. Um well, I mean, I wouldn't say
• 54:11
  for computers. [laughter]
• 54:12
  >> Okay.
• 54:13
  >> Yeah. Um but there is certainly you know
• 54:16
  there is certainly ways of reading
• 54:18
  scripture in that sense
• 54:20
  and not even just church of latter day
• 54:22
  saints scripture like the book of
• 54:24
  Mormon. I mean you could read certain
• 54:27
  >> the orthodox tradition can be read in
• 54:29
  such a way I mean for example the famous
• 54:30
  Russian cosmist Nikolai Fodov.
• 54:32
  >> Yeah
• 54:33
  >> that's how he read Christianity. He read
• 54:35
  the New Testament. He said that this is
• 54:37
  what we're meant to do.
• 54:38
  >> Uh the kingdom of God is not some
• 54:41
  further place away. it is here. We just
• 54:44
  have to achieve it ourselves.
• 54:47
  Um much of this has to do with again
• 54:49
  awareness being the only thing that can
• 54:51
  be cultivated. Everything else is
• 54:53
  superfluous and subject to change.
• 54:55
  >> Mhm.
• 54:56
  >> Uh so all of this takes us back to the
• 54:58
  same problem. You know what is it that
• 55:00
  really persists? Is it individuated or
• 55:02
  not? Mhm. [clears throat]
• 55:03
  >> Um and so if we accept this idea that we
• 55:07
  do have an incorporal form of awareness,
• 55:10
  consciousness that is not bound by the
• 55:13
  confines of the body, then it makes
• 55:16
  every sense of the term, at least to me
• 55:17
  logically, to cultivate it to the
• 55:19
  greatest degree possible.
• 55:21
  And this is what it means on the obverse
• 55:24
  to become insold
• 55:25
  >> from the perspective of the Russian
• 55:27
  cosmists and Fodderov in particular to
• 55:31
  migrate into outer space is is almost a
• 55:34
  religious duty.
• 55:35
  >> In fact, it's not only a religious duty.
• 55:37
  Fodorov had this sense that it was
• 55:39
  inevitable.
• 55:40
  >> Mhm.
• 55:40
  >> And that human expansion towards the
• 55:42
  stars was exploring God's garden which
• 55:46
  is the world. Right. The onus is on us.
• 55:49
  But Fodov has a very despite all his
• 55:53
  heavy palemic towards the Buddhist
• 55:56
  tradition he has a lot in common with
• 55:57
  them. Mhm.
• 55:58
  >> He says for example that we cannot do
• 56:00
  any of this. We cannot realize this
• 56:02
  ultimate this ultimate common task as he
• 56:05
  calls it um until we overcome enmity.
• 56:10
  Right? Until we overcome base human
• 56:13
  desires,
• 56:15
  >> right? So he says unless we no longer
• 56:18
  think about ourself only about
• 56:20
  ourselves,
• 56:21
  >> right? Then we cannot do this. So he saw
• 56:26
  that there must be a brotherhood, a
• 56:28
  sisterhood
• 56:29
  >> of our species whereby we are all
• 56:32
  collectively conscripted. He uses the
• 56:34
  term conscripted towards bringing the
• 56:38
  kingdom of God to earth to the world.
• 56:42
  >> Does he Fodor talk about the individual
• 56:45
  soul at all?
• 56:46
  >> He talks about it automatically as
• 56:48
  co-extensive with the rest of the
• 56:50
  species. Mhm.
• 56:51
  >> So in other words, and this is very
• 56:53
  interesting because FOV is unusually
• 56:56
  radical. I mean truly original
• 56:58
  >> as far as originality goes. He's about
• 57:00
  as original as it gets. So his um his
• 57:03
  mission statement is um universal
• 57:05
  resurrection.
• 57:07
  That means you are to resurrect every
• 57:09
  one of your ancestors all the way back
• 57:11
  to every single human being that's ever
• 57:13
  lived.
• 57:15
  Until that is achieved, none of us are
• 57:16
  complete.
• 57:18
  So how do we understand soul then? You
• 57:20
  know, we're only truly
• 57:24
  um a self if you want to call it that or
• 57:26
  truly soul or truly alive if we are all
• 57:30
  together
• 57:31
  >> here now or where.
• 57:32
  >> Well, this evokes the idea of the group
• 57:34
  soul.
• 57:35
  >> Yeah, definitely.
• 57:36
  >> Or or the soul of the world.
• 57:38
  >> That's right. Yeah. And of course, when
• 57:40
  he has this idea that you are to
• 57:42
  resurrect every single human being, he
• 57:44
  has in mind that you are making
• 57:45
  consciousness as aware as possible.
• 57:47
  >> Mhm. So death for fov is not a good
• 57:50
  thing. It is that which is to be
• 57:52
  overcome.
• 57:54
  >> So death
• 57:55
  >> death. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So in
• 57:58
  that sense you know he also
• 58:00
  problematizes the issue of bodily
• 58:02
  resurrection and judgment day and
• 58:04
  everything. Uh because if we are to do
• 58:07
  all the work then there is no
• 58:08
  resurrection. There's just completeness.
• 58:11
  >> And sometimes he calls it the
• 58:12
  completeness of being. So he thinks once
• 58:15
  everyone's resurrected, everybody no
• 58:16
  longer has any enmity, no more
• 58:18
  animosity, perfect harmony.
• 58:20
  >> Yeah.
• 58:21
  >> Then even the the the chaotic forces of
• 58:24
  nature which he calls a chaotic, they
• 58:27
  would sort of mellow out into perfect
• 58:28
  harmony. So it is fundamentally
• 58:31
  metaphysical what he's thinking about
• 58:32
  here. Well, if death is something to be
• 58:35
  overcome, one assumes he doesn't accept
• 58:38
  survival in in the
• 58:41
  [clears throat] sense that I write about
• 58:44
  it in my essay.
• 58:45
  >> Yeah, it doesn't look like it. I mean,
• 58:47
  by all accounts, if we follow the
• 58:48
  reasoning through to its end,
• 58:50
  >> it seems like every time you die for
• 58:52
  fear of non-being has gotten the upper
• 58:55
  hand on being.
• 58:56
  >> Yeah.
• 58:57
  >> He has this dialectic at work in his
• 58:59
  writings.
• 59:00
  The point however is that humanity is
• 59:03
  still immortal because we keep
• 59:04
  reproducing anyway but we keep
• 59:07
  reproducing and going through the ages
• 59:09
  of history
• 59:11
  always you know
• 59:14
  antagonistic to non-being.
• 59:16
  So it's not going anywhere until we
• 59:18
  suddenly stop fragmentation sort of any
• 59:22
  discordance between ourselves. it will
• 59:25
  continue you know life after life after
• 59:27
  life
• 59:28
  >> and yet we have in the near-death
• 59:30
  literature people who say that this
• 59:33
  state of perfect harmony universal love
• 59:37
  beyond anything one imagines while in
• 59:39
  the body is what they experience many of
• 59:42
  them in the in the near-death state
• 59:46
  >> yeah so as we can see that we really
• 59:48
  don't know what soul is [laughter]
• 59:51
  truly yeah I mean this would definitely
• 59:53
  contradict what Fodov would say Fodov
• 59:56
  would say no. I mean life is everything.
• 59:59
  >> He would say that life and death are
• 1:00:01
  opposed to each other.
• 1:00:03
  >> Absolutely.
• 1:00:04
  >> And I think I might say the opposite
• 1:00:06
  that life and death are intimately
• 1:00:09
  connected with each other.
• 1:00:11
  >> Buddhists don't like life and death as a
• 1:00:13
  cycle either.
• 1:00:15
  >> They think that's what perpetuates
• 1:00:16
  suffering. I mean the central message is
• 1:00:18
  to overcome
• 1:00:20
  and the cycles of rebirth.
• 1:00:21
  >> Mhm. So you're no longer dead or alive
• 1:00:25
  when when you retain nirvana.
• 1:00:27
  >> So I mean this is also another way of
• 1:00:30
  understanding soul. It could be very
• 1:00:32
  much the case that soul itself whatever
• 1:00:35
  it is is transforming the way it
• 1:00:38
  understands itself throughout the
• 1:00:39
  history
• 1:00:40
  >> because as you can see we've reached the
• 1:00:41
  age now where we're not so negatively
• 1:00:44
  inclined toward death. We see death as a
• 1:00:46
  greater part of life. It makes life
• 1:00:48
  complete.
• 1:00:49
  >> Yeah.
• 1:00:50
  Whereas other other you know traditions
• 1:00:52
  as we already talked about don't. They
• 1:00:53
  see the opposite.
• 1:00:54
  >> I guess the simple truth is we live in a
• 1:00:58
  world where both ideas have have their
• 1:01:02
  supporters.
• 1:01:03
  >> The embracing of opposition between life
• 1:01:06
  and death seems to be the you know the
• 1:01:08
  the dominant trend today.
• 1:01:11
  >> This idea of the celebration of of life
• 1:01:13
  and death.
• 1:01:15
  >> I think we see it in literature, we see
• 1:01:17
  it in poetry, we see it in the arts. Um,
• 1:01:20
  yeah, I mean it it it's uh it's
• 1:01:22
  certainly an interesting topic to think
• 1:01:24
  about.
• 1:01:25
  >> Emil Alexandro, what a pleasure to have
• 1:01:29
  a conversation with you about the soul.
• 1:01:33
  >> Thank you very much. It's
• 1:01:34
  >> we we could talk for 10,000 years.
• 1:01:37
  >> Absolutely. [laughter] I'm sure this
• 1:01:39
  conversation will extend beyond this
• 1:01:41
  session.
• 1:01:42
  >> Yeah. I'm It's so wonderful to have you
• 1:01:45
  here in Albuquerque and I definitely
• 1:01:48
  want you back before you leave.
• 1:01:51
  >> Thank you very much. It's a great honor.
• 1:01:53
  >> It's It's a joy for me. Truly a a joy.
• 1:01:57
  And I venture to say it's a joy for our
• 1:02:00
  viewers as well.
• 1:02:02
  >> I hope so too. Yeah. And for those of
• 1:02:06
  you watching or listening, thank you for
• 1:02:09
  being with us because you you are the
• 1:02:14
  reason that we are here.
• 1:02:17
  [music]
• 1:02:31
  >> [music]
• 1:02:36
  [music]
• 1:02:38
  >> New Thinking Aloud is presented by the
• 1:02:40
  California Institute for Human Science,
• 1:02:43
  a fully accredited university offering
• 1:02:46
  distant learning graduate degrees that
• 1:02:49
  focus on mind, body, and spirit. the
• 1:02:52
  topics that we cover here. We are
• 1:02:54
  particularly excited to announce new
• 1:02:56
  degrees emphasizing parasychology and
• 1:03:00
  the paranormal. Visit their website at
• 1:03:03
  cihs.edu.
• 1:03:06
  The new thinking aloud magazine issue 10
• 1:03:09
  on UFOs and UAP is now ready for free
• 1:03:13
  download. And you can also order
• 1:03:15
  beautiful printed copies. Go to
• 1:03:18
  newthinkingaloud.org.
• 1:03:21
  Book four in the new thinking aloud
• 1:03:24
  dialogue series is Charles T. Tart, 70
• 1:03:28
  years of exploring consciousness and
• 1:03:31
  parasychology,
• 1:03:33
  now available on Amazon.
• 1:03:36
  >> For early access to our videos and live
• 1:03:40
  stream events, sign up for our free
• 1:03:44
  weekly newsletter at
• 1:03:46
  newthinkingaloud.org.