What is a human soul. Is the human soul an energy field? How many lives does she have

SOUL

Soul, Seele) is a definite, detached functional complex, which would be best described as "personality" (PT, par. 696).

Jung establishes a logical distinction between the soul and the mental, understanding by the latter "the totality of all mental processes, both conscious and unconscious" (ibid.). Jung used the term psyche more often than soul. But there are also cases of Jung's specific use of the term "soul", such as: 1) instead of the concept of "psyche", especially when in the latter they want to emphasize a deep movement, to emphasize the plurality, diversity and impenetrability of the psyche in comparison with any other structure, order or semantic unit discernible in the inner world of a person; 2) instead of the word "spirit", when it is necessary to designate the immaterial in people: their essence, core, center of personality (KSAP, p. 55).

SOUL

a concept that reflects historically changing views on the psyche of humans and animals; in religion, idealistic philosophy and psychology, the soul is an immaterial, life-giving and cognitive principle independent of the body. In Hellenic philosophy, the existence of the soul was not questioned. In general, in antiquity, different opinions about the soul - its "materiality" and "ideality", emerged. A special treatise on the soul belongs to Aristotle and is the first known proper psychological work. It systematized well-known ideas about the soul, put forward and substantiated several important provisions. Here the soul is defined as the essence of a living body - a special organ through which the body feels and thinks. On the whole, the soul is mortal along with the body, but a part of it, corresponding to abstract, theoretical thinking, is immortal. From the standpoint of materialism, the emergence of the concept of the soul is associated with the animistic ideas of primitive man, who interpreted sleep, fainting, death, etc. in a primitive materialist way. Dreams were perceived as impressions of the soul leaving the body and gaining an independent existence. The further development of ideas about the soul took place in the context of the history of psychology and was expressed in the clash of idealistic and materialistic teachings about the psyche. For the first time, the position of the inseparability of the soul from the body was put forward by Aristotle, according to which the soul in a person appears in three modifications: plant, animal and rational. In modern times, Descartes identified the soul with consciousness as a reflection of the subject. In empirical psychology, the concept of the soul was replaced by the concept of mental phenomena. In scientific literature - philosophical, psychological and others - the term "soul" is not used or is used very rarely - as a synonym for the word psyche. In everyday usage, the content of the soul usually corresponds to the concepts of the psyche, the inner world of a person, experience, consciousness. According to C.G. Jung, the soul is a non-physical reality filled with energy that moves in connection with internal conflicts. It is full of opposites: conscious and unconscious, masculine and feminine, extroverted and introverted ... The problem is that for a number of reasons, primarily of a sociocultural plan, a person sees and develops in himself only one of the sides of a single contradictory pair, while the other remains hidden and unacceptable. A person must open and accept himself in the process of individuation. The hidden sides of the soul require acceptance, appearing in dreams, symbolically invoking; you need to be able to see the meaning of the call, and ignoring it, typical for an unprepared person, leads to disintegration, the impossibility of self-development and crisis experiences and diseases.

SOUL

English soul; lat. anima). D. - ethnologically. The belief or conviction that our thought, feeling, will, life are conditioned by something different from our body (albeit connected with it, having its dwelling place in it) is probably characteristic of all mankind, and m. B. stated at the lowest levels of culture, among the most primitive peoples (see Animism). The origin of this belief m. B. is reduced, in the end, to well-being, to the recognition of one's "I", one's individuality, more or less closely connected with the material body, but not identical with it, but only using it as a dwelling, a tool, an organ. This "I", this is something spiritual, or, in a more primitive representation, the driving principle, the "force" that is in us - this is what primitive man connects with the idea of ​​"D." (Enz. Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, 1893, T. I, p. 277).

1. D. until the middle of the XIX century. was not only the subject of philosophical and theological reflections, but also the subject of the study of psychology. From the beginning. In the development of experimental psychology, dialecticism remained only a nominal subject of scientific psychology, which sought to become like the natural sciences. The psyche became its real subject. Psychology sacrificed D. for the objectivity of its subjective science. Psychologists do not deny the existence of dialectic, but refrain from studying it, try to avoid delicate questions about its nature, and transmit dialectic and spirit under the authority of philosophy, religion, and art. Loss of D. is not harmless for psychology. She pays for her with a permanent crisis, the dominant of which is the inescapable longing for the integrity of mental life. In search of integrity, psychologists sort out various methodological principles, sometimes absurd (like the principles of determinism or systemicity), looking for and sorting out various units of analysis, "cells" from which all the wealth of mental life is derived. Association, reaction, reflex, gestalt, operation, meaning, experience, attitude, attitude, act of reflection, action, action, etc. have played the role of such units. functions and possible ontology. They voluntarily or involuntarily follow the recommendations of M. Foucault: You go back to the main thing ...

Much in philosophical and psychological reflections on D. has survived from mythology (see paragraph 1). Aristotle considered D. as the cause and early. living body, D. recognized as an essence, a kind of form of a natural body, potentially gifted with life. Essence is realization (entelechy), i.e. D. is the completion of such a body. Hence, according to Aristotle, D. is power. Its most important function is foresight: "[Soul] is a certain realization and comprehension of what has the ability to be realized" (On the soul. - M., 1937. - S. 42). D. seeks and focuses on the future, which does not yet exist, and she sketches the contours of future events. But she, according to I. Kant, perceives the internal states of the subject, that is, perceives and evaluates the present, without which the search is impossible and the future is not needed. This means that D. is at least a dweller of 2 worlds: the present and the future, possessing, moreover, a form-building force or energy. Plato speaks about this, whose peacemaking fantasy gave rise to the wonderful image of D. He likened it to the combined strength of a winged pair of horses and a charioteer: a good horse is a strong-willed impulse, a bad horse is an affect (passion). A charioteer is a mind that takes something from a good horse and something from a bad horse.

In most of the meanings of D., with slight variations, all of the listed attributes of D. are present: cognition, feeling, and will. For Augustine, the main abilities of D. are memory, reason, and will. If K.-L. from the attributes is absent, D. turns out to be flawed. For example, L.N. Tolstoy wrote that commanders are deprived of the best human qualities: love, poetry, tenderness, philosophical doubt. The presence of all the attributes of D. (reason, feeling, will, and let us add: memory) does not guarantee her wealth. Deep mind, high talent, remarkable professional skill m. B. poisoned by pride, envy, which devastate D., kill the spirit. M. b. Plato's combined power lacks wings ?! This explanation is beautiful. And although it is difficult to accept it as a definition, it follows from it that D. cannot be reduced to knowledge, feeling, and will. D. is a mysterious excess of knowledge, feeling, and will, without which it is impossible for them to fully develop.

Recognition of the reality of dialectic inevitably entails the question of its ontology. Aristoxenus (a student of Aristotle) ​​argued that D. is nothing more than the tension, the rhythmic mood of bodily vibrations. Plotinus reasoned in the same spirit. Answering the question why the beauty of a living face is dazzling, and only a trace of it remains on a dead face, he wrote that there is still nothing in it that attracts the eye: beauty with grace. A. Bergson notes in this regard: "It is not for nothing that they call in one word the charm, which manifests itself in movement, and the act of generosity inherent in Divine virtue - both meanings of the word" grace "were one."

Naturalists expressed similar thoughts. AF Samoilov, assessing the scientific merits of I. M. Sechenov, said: "Our famous botanist K. A. Timiryazev, analyzing the ratio and significance of various parts of a plant, exclaimed:" a leaf is a plant. "It seems to me that we with the same right they could say: "a muscle is an animal." Muscle made an animal an animal ... a man a man. " Continuing this line of reasoning, one may ask, what is D.? The bodily organism is busy. M. b. it is grace or, in the terms of Ya. A. Bernstein, living movement! It was at the final sites of action that Ch. Sher-rington localized its attributes (memory and foresight). To this should be added the statement of R. Descartes that action and passion are one. A. A. Ukhtomsky gave such reflections a very definite form. Having set himself the goal of cognizing the anatomy of the human spirit (N. V. Gogol would have called him a "mental anatomist"), Ukhtomsky introduced the concept of a functional organ of an individual. Such an organ is any temporary combination of forces capable of accomplishing a certain achievement. It is similar to the vortex motion of Descartes. (Let us once again recall the combined force in Plato's metaphor.) Such organs are: movement, action, image of the world, memory, creative mind, human states, even personality. In their totality, they constitute a spiritual organism. According to Ukhtomsky, these organs, having formed, exist virtually and are observed only in performance, that is, in action, in an act, in empirical real being. There is no contradiction here; thus, stopping can be viewed as accumulated motion. This is, for example, an image, which is the eidetic energy accumulated in the course of its formation. Such energy, with the sanction of D. and the courage of the spirit, is embodied in action, in a work. In fact, Ukhtomsky came to the conclusion about the energy projection of the spiritual organism (combination of forces), in which D.

It would be premature and reckless to identify the functional organs, which are innumerable, with D., but one cannot fail to notice that they are co-natural with D., therefore, she can "dispose" of them. Fichte said that a person builds new organs and functions of D., and that D., outlined by his consciousness, in other words, performs the form-forming function, which was mentioned above. She herself is the "form of forms". It happens that D. and consciousness are planning to create organs for their destruction: "The soul is struck like a thunder by a curse: the creative mind has mastered it - it has killed" (A. Blok).

The adoption of the position on the energetic nature of D. facilitates the discussion of questions about its location and functions. In particular, Hegel's position becomes clear: "Dialectic is something all-pervading, and not something that exists only in a separate individual." D. can be between people. Even the union of souls is possible. D. is the gift of my spirit to others (M. M. Bakhtin). It is in this sense that D. cannot perish; she passes to another. Of course, if this gift is accepted by another, and if the latter has a grateful memory, D. retains the authorship of the donor. Once upon a time in Russian. language "spiritual memory" was equivalent to "will". D. is an amazing gift that does not grow scarce from donation, it grows: the more you give, the more is left for the donor. The proposition that dialectic is a gift of the spirit does not contradict Hegel's definition of spirit: spirit is a system of movements in which it distinguishes itself in moments and at the same time remains free. This means that D. is related not only to functional organs, but also to the spirit.

One more thing: "D.'s place is where the outer and inner worlds touch, where they penetrate each other. It is at every point of penetration" (Novalis). In the language of V.F.Humboldt and G.G. Shpet, this is a place between external and internal forms, at the points of their interaction and interpenetration. Both forms are linked by a relationship of mutual procreation. The outside is born inside, and the inside is born outside. Being between them or embracing them, D., to put it mildly, coordinates their interaction. Perhaps D. feels (is aware) of the inequality of external and internal forms and thus acts as a source of ideas, feelings, actions, in the end, a source and driving force of development. Strong D. transforms the negative. the energy generated by the "excess of lack", into positive energy, into the energy of creation and achievements.

Eliot said that what is in front of us and what is behind us are nothing compared to what is within us. Every person has archeological, or archetypal, layers, virtual forms of behavior, activity, knowledge, experience, undisclosed abilities. All of them are inaccessible not only to an outside observer, but also to their bearer. It happens that all this wealth, like water, is frozen in ice. "D. develops the bowels" (O. Mandelstam), and so on. allows them to discover and realize themselves. Awake D. is always on the brink, on the threshold of transformation.

So, there are at least 3 spaces "between", or 3 boundaries where D is located: between people, the external and internal forms of the person himself, between the past and the future. It does a tremendous job of linking all of the listed pairs horizontally, and possibly vertically. The idea of ​​the D. borderland deserves the closest attention. Bakhtin wrote that culture does not have its own closed territory: it is all located on the borders. Every cultural act essentially lives on the borders: abstracted from the borders, it loses its ground, becomes empty, arrogant and dies. The same is the case with D. Closing itself exclusively on itself or in itself, it degrades.

D.'s borderland does not contradict the fact that she can manifest herself outside. Shpet wrote: “In general, was it not because the philosophers and psychologists failed to find the“ seat of D. ”because they were looking for him inside, while all of her, D., outside, with a soft, delicate veil, cloaks“ us. ”But on the other hand, blows, which are inflicted on her - wrinkles and scars on our outer face. All D. is an appearance. A person lives as long as he has an appearance. And personality is an appearance. The problem of D.'s immortality would be solved if the problem of immortal outwardness were solved "( Works - M., 1989. - S. 363-365). D. m. B. also high and low, large and small, wide and narrow, even tight. Poets say that dialectic has its limits: the limits of dialectic, the limits of melancholy. This means that for all its borderland, D. has its own space, but the space is completely special. The space of D., its palaces are not described by metric or even topological categories, although D. has its own topology. The topology of dialectic is not unique, but multiple; the topology is not scientistic, but humanitarian, presupposing a reciprocal reversibility of space and time, determined by meaning.

Space and time D. is the subject of reflections on the fascinating and endless area of ​​chronotopia (see Chronotope) of a person's conscious and unconscious life. The search for D.'s ontology should be continued. D. not only plans to create new functional bodies, but authorizes, coordinates and integrates their work. At the same time, she herself reveals herself more and more fully. Perhaps, in this work, D. lurks the integrity of man, sought by scientists and artists, which is a stumbling block for psychology, which has long dreamed of bringing together isolated mental functions that have already been studied in detail and is looking for the laws of their interaction. (V.P. Zinchenko.)

Soul

Mental, psyche, personality, persona, anima]. In the course of my research on the structure of the unconscious, I had to establish a logical distinction between the soul and the psychic. By mental or psyche, I mean the totality of all mental processes, both conscious and unconscious. For my part, under my soul, I think of a definite, separate functional complex, which would be best described as a "personality". For a clearer description of what I mean by this, I must draw on a few more points of view here. So, in particular, the phenomenon of somnambulism, split consciousness, split personality, etc., in the study of which the greatest merits belong to French scientists, led us to the point of view according to which many personalities can exist in one and the same individual.

[Soul as a functional complex or "personality"] It is clear and without further explanation that such a multiplication of personalities is never found in the normal individual; however, the possibility of personality dissociation, confirmed by these cases, could exist in the sphere of normal phenomena, if only in the form of a hint. Indeed, a somewhat more keen psychological observation manages, without much difficulty, to discern the presence of at least rudimentary traces of a split in character even in normal individuals. It is enough, for example, to carefully observe someone under various circumstances in order to discover how sharply his personality changes when passing from one environment to another, and each time a sharply defined and clearly different character is revealed. The proverb “He barks with his own, but caresses for others” (Gassenengel - Hausteufel) formulates, starting from everyday experience, precisely the phenomenon of such a splitting of the personality. A certain environment requires a certain installation. The longer and the more often this environment-friendly installation is required, the sooner it becomes familiar. Too many people from the educated class are mostly forced to move in two completely different environments - in the home, in the family and in business. These two completely different situations also require two completely different attitudes, which, depending on the degree of identification (see) of the ego with each given attitude, lead to a doubling of character. In accordance with social conditions and needs, the social character is oriented, on the one hand, on the expectations and requirements of the business environment, on the other hand, on the social intentions and aspirations of the subject himself. Usually, the domestic character is formed rather according to the spiritual needs of the subject and his needs for convenience, which is why it happens that people, in social life, are extremely energetic, courageous, stubborn, stubborn and shameless, at home and in the family turn out to be good-natured, gentle, compliant and weak. Which character is true, where is the real person? This question is often impossible to answer.

These considerations show that a splitting of character is quite possible in a normal individual. Therefore, we can rightfully discuss the issue of personality dissociation and as a problem of normal psychology. In my opinion, - if we continue our research, - the question posed should be answered in such a way that such a person does not have a real character at all, that he is not individual at all (see), but collective (see), that is, corresponds to general circumstances, meets general expectations. If he were individual, he would have the same character with all the differences in attitude. He would not be identical with each given attitude and would not, and would not want to, prevent his individuality from being expressed in this way, and not otherwise, in one or the other state. In reality, he is individual, like any creature, but only unconsciously. By his more or less complete identification with each given attitude, he deceives at least others, and often himself, as to what his real character is; he puts on a mask, about which he knows that it corresponds, on the one hand, to his own intentions, on the other, to the claims and opinions of his environment, and one or the other prevails.

[Soul as a person]

This mask, that is, the ad hoc attitude adopted, I called "persona" - the term used to designate the mask of the ancient actor. A person who is identified with such a mask, I call "personal" as opposed to "individual".

Both of the aforementioned attitudes represent two collective "personalities", which we collectively denote by one name of "person". I have already pointed out above that real personality is different from both of them. So, a person is a complex of functions, created on the basis of adaptation or necessary convenience, but by no means identical with individuality. The set of functions that make up a person refers exclusively to objects. It is necessary to clearly distinguish the relationship of the individual to the object from his relationship to the subject. By "subject" I mean, first of all, those vague, dark motives of feelings, thoughts and sensations that do not flow with clarity from the continuous stream of conscious experiences associated with the object, but which emerge, often interfering and delaying, but sometimes encouraging, from the dark inner depths, from deep distant regions lying beyond the threshold of consciousness, and in their totality compose our perception of the life of the unconscious. The unconscious is a subject taken as an "internal" object. Just as there is a relationship to an external object, an external attitude, so there is a relationship to an internal object, an internal attitude. It is clear that this inner attitude, due to its extremely intimate and intimate essence, is a much less well-known subject than the outer attitude, which everyone can see without any difficulty. However, it seems to me that it is not at all difficult to get an idea of ​​this inner attitude. All these so-called random congestions, quirks, moods, vague feelings and fragments of fantasies, sometimes disrupting concentrated work, and sometimes the rest of the most normal person, the origin of which we rationalistically reduce now to bodily reasons, now to other reasons, are usually not based at all on those reasons to which consciousness ascribes them, and the essence of the perception of unconscious processes. Dreams, of course, belong to such phenomena, which, as you know, are often reduced to such external and superficial reasons as indigestion, lying on your back, etc., although such an explanation never stands up to more rigorous criticism. The attitude of individuals in relation to these phenomena is very different. One does not at all allow his internal processes to influence himself, he can, so to speak, completely abandon them, while the other is highly susceptible to their influence; even when getting up in the morning, some fantasy or some disgusting feeling spoils such a person's mood for the whole day; a vague, unpleasant sensation inspires him with the idea of ​​a latent illness, a dream gives him a dark foreboding, although he, in general, is not at all superstitious. On the contrary, other people are only occasionally subject to such unconscious impulses or only to a certain category of them. For some, they, perhaps, never even reached consciousness as something that could be thought about, for others they are the subject of daily reflections. One evaluates them physiologically or ascribes them to the behavior of his neighbors, the other finds in them a religious revelation.

These very different ways of dealing with the impulses of the unconscious are as familiar to individuals as attitudes towards external objects. Therefore, the internal setting corresponds to the same definite set of functions as the external setting. In cases where internal mental processes seem to be completely ignored, the typical internal attitude is absent as little as the typical external attitude is absent in those cases when the external object, the reality of facts, is constantly ignored. In these latter, far from rare cases, the person is characterized by a lack of correlation, coherence, sometimes even blind indiscretion, recklessness, bowing only to the cruel blows of fate. Often it is these individuals with a rigid persona that are distinguished by such an attitude towards unconscious processes, which is extremely susceptible to the influences emanating from them. As far as they are from the outside, unyielding and inaccessible to influence, they are just as soft, sluggish and malleable in relation to their internal processes. Therefore, in such cases, the internal attitude corresponds to the internal personality, diametrically opposite to the external personality. I know, for example, a person who mercilessly and blindly destroyed the life happiness of his loved ones, but interrupts an important business trip in order to enjoy the beauty of a forest edge, which he noticed from a railway carriage. The same or similar cases are known, of course, to everyone, so there is no need for me to pile up examples.

[Soul as anima]

Everyday experience gives us the same right to speak of an external personality as it gives us to acknowledge the existence of an internal personality. The internal personality is that kind and way of relating to internal mental processes, which is inherent in a given person; it is that inner attitude, that character with which he is directed to the unconscious. The external attitude, the external character, I call a person; the inner attitude, the inner face, I use the word anima, or soul. To the extent that the attitude is habitual, it is a more or less stable complex of functions with which the ego can more or less identify. Our everyday language expresses this very clearly: when someone has a habitual attitude towards certain situations, a customary way of acting, they usually say: "He is completely different when he does this or that." This reveals the independence of the functional complex with the habitual attitude: the situation is as if another person took possession of the individual, as if a different spirit had taken over him. An indoor setting, a shower, requires the same independence that very often corresponds to an outdoor setting. This is one of the most difficult educational tricks - to change the persona, the external attitude. But it is just as difficult to change the soul, because usually its structure is as extremely welded as the structure of the person. Just as a person is a being, which often constitutes the entire visible character of a person and, in certain cases, invariably accompanying him throughout his life, so his soul is a definitely limited being, which sometimes has an invariably stable and independent character. Therefore, often the soul lends itself well to characterization and description.

With regard to the character of the soul, then, in my experience, it is possible to establish the general principle that it in general complements the external character of the person. Experience shows us that the soul usually contains all those common human properties that the conscious attitude is devoid of. The tyrant, haunted by heavy dreams, dark forebodings and inner fears, is a typical figure. From the outside, unceremonious, tough and inaccessible, he internally succumbs to every shadow, is subject to every whim as if he were the most dependent, the most easily identifiable being. Consequently, his anima (soul) contains those common human properties of determinability and weakness, which his external attitude, his persona, is completely devoid of. If a person is intelligent, then the soul is probably sentimental. The character of the soul also influences the sexual character, of which I have been convinced with no doubt more than once. A woman, eminently feminine, has a masculine soul; a very masculine man has a feminine soul. This opposition arises due to the fact that, for example, a man is not at all completely and not in everything more masculine, but also possesses some feminine features. The more masculine his external attitude, the more all feminine features are etched out of it; therefore they appear in his soul. This circumstance explains why it is precisely very courageous men who are subject to characteristic weaknesses: they relate to the impulses of the unconscious in a feminine manner and gently submit to their influences. Conversely, it is the most feminine women who often turn out to be incorrigible, persistent and stubborn in certain internal matters, revealing these properties in such an intensity that is found only in the external attitude of men. These masculine traits, being excluded from the external attitude of a woman, became the properties of her soul.

Therefore, if we talk about anime in a man, then in a woman we should justly talk about an animus in order to give a woman's soul the correct name.

As for the general human properties, the character of the soul can be inferred from the character of a person. Everything that should normally be found in the external attitude, but which is strangely absent in it, is undoubtedly in the internal attitude. This is a basic rule that has always been confirmed in my experience. As for individual properties, no conclusions can be drawn in this regard. If in a man, in general, in the external attitude, logic and objectivity prevail or, at least, is considered an ideal, then in a woman - feeling. But in the soul, the opposite attitude turns out: the man feels inside, and the woman thinks. Therefore, it is easier for a man to fall into complete despair, while a woman is still able to comfort and hope; therefore, a man is more likely to take his own life than a woman. How easily a woman becomes a victim of social conditions, for example, as a prostitute, so much a man succumbs to the impulses of the unconscious, falling into alcoholism and other vices. If someone is identical with his person, then his individual properties are associated with the soul. From this association, a symbol of mental pregnancy arises, often found in dreams and based on the original birth image of the hero. The child who is to be born, in this case, denotes an individuality that is not yet present in consciousness.

Identity with the person automatically determines the unconscious identity with the soul, for if the subject, "I", is not different from the person, then he has no conscious relation to the processes of the unconscious. Therefore, he is nothing but these very processes - he is identical with them. He who unconditionally merges with his external role inevitably falls under the power of internal processes, that is, under certain circumstances, he will inevitably go against his external role, or will bring it to the point of absurdity. (See enantiodromia.) This, of course, excludes the assertion of an individual line of behavior, and life proceeds in inevitable opposites. In this case, the soul is always projected into a corresponding real object, to which an attitude of almost unconditional dependence is created. All reactions emanating from this object act on the subject directly, capturing him from within. This often takes the form of tragic ties.

What is the human soul? Why human soul and his spiritual development are priority? In the section "Human Soul" we will cover these and many other questions concerning the human soul. Sorry for the slight digression, but I think it would be appropriate to quote Clive S. Lewis here. “You have no soul! You are the soul! You have a body! "

The first is the physical body visible to us, consisting of billions of cells.

The second is the etheric body, an exact copy of the physical, the physical body receives vital energy through it, the etheric body maintains the shape of the physical body, it has long been photographed using the Kirling method.

The third is astral, in which the process of desires and emotions takes place, the frequency of its vibrations is so high that it is invisible to the physical organs of vision. The astral body is slightly larger than the physical (by several decimeters). The connection between the physical, etheric, astral bodies is carried out with the help of the "silver thread" (biblical term), which is located near the heart, and at death it disappears. During sleep, the astral body leaves the physical and begins to travel through space. If you know how to manage your dreams, then you can anticipate future events.

The fourth is the mental body, it plans an intelligent structure of behavior. In a state of deep sleep, without dreaming, the mental body is separated from the physical. Physical, etheric, astral, mental bodies are not constituent parts of the eternal soul, they are temporary.

The fifth, sixth, seventh bodies belong to the eternal part of the soul.

The fifth is the body of abstract thinking.

The sixth is the body of the spiritual mind (the body of the Buddha).

The seventh - the higher body, is a particle of God (our higher "I"), which is enclosed in the body of the spiritual mind, ie the sixth body is overconsciousness, which gives a person the possibility of insight, endowing him with intuition. The seventh and sixth bodies form an eternal monad (Monad are living, spirit-like units of which everything consists), the same for all people, which are the unconscious basis of the soul of every person. Around the monad is the body of abstract thinking (fifth), which is a repository of the results of life experiences, experiences. The acquired mental and moral qualities are stored there, otherwise they could not increase in the process of spiritual development.

What is the mechanism of the evolution of the human soul? - passes according to a certain plan of the Creator. According to this plan, a person lives each life as one lesson in the school of eternal life. Relatively speaking, the eternal life of each of us is divided into several classes, each of which has its own tasks, its own life lessons.

The first class includes people for whom the topic of the lesson is a sharp decrease in the level of egoism. The mental development of such people is in its infancy. They are born in semi-civilized societies, repeatedly incarnate in the same subrace, have a short break between incarnations.

The second class - people of limited horizons, their interests do not go beyond the family, nationality, but their task is already changing - a person must learn to share with others. They are reincarnated many times, between reincarnations they have a short rest, the duration of which depends on their success in spiritual development during earthly life. In the first two grades, the majority of humanity is currently "educated".

The third class is cultured people who strive to comprehend the sublime, with lofty ideals, their mental development allows them to realize the unity of humanity, they take part in the destinies of other people, strive to help them. Between the reincarnations of their souls, a hundred, even a thousand years can pass.

The fourth class is people who have attained cosmic consciousness, who have realized their place in the Universe. To accelerate their spiritual evolution, they deliberately refuse to stay in the astral plane, reincarnating immediately after death.

The fifth class - people who have achieved a high development of the soul, possessing enormous abilities, opportunities, they help groups of people, all of humanity. These are the Great Teachers: Christ, Buddha, Magomed, Moses. They incarnate only at will, when there is a real threat to the existence of mankind.

In this way, spiritual development for each of us is determined by the will of God, but the speed of his spiritual evolution depends on the degree of efforts. If these efforts are not enough, then in the first two classes of earthly education they will spend most of their lives in constant physical and mental suffering. If a person's efforts are aimed at intensive spiritual development, this will allow him to live most of his life in harmony with the Universe, without experiencing physical, spiritual inconveniences. These efforts to accelerate spiritual evolution are called self-improvement.

From this follows the conclusion: development, and the goal of his earthly incarnation is to achieve the highest possible level of development of the soul through self-improvement.

This publication examines a question that practically any thinking person asks himself in one form or another. Even small children are often interested in the secrets of the universe, ask their parents where and how the world around them came from. The following questions are also asked: "What is a Soul?" And "If it lives inside me, then where does it go after my death?" Years pass and many people turn their attention to solving certain problems, while others follow the Path of Spiritual Search.

In order to understand what the Soul is, it is necessary to inquire about what the sources of spiritual knowledge say about it. For example, it can be the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-gita. One of the messages says that the Spirit, Soul and body should not have any blemish. There are several biblical meanings of the term we are interested in:

• Living creature: human or animal.
• Personality.
• A life.

Reflecting on the previously mentioned letter of the Apostle Paul and on other passages of Holy Scripture, we can draw the appropriate conclusion: The soul is a person's personality. It can be said in another way: "Man is a Spirit who has a Soul and He lives in a body." There are also other opinions, since the topic itself has been raised for many centuries. We can recall the Greek philosopher Democritus, who gave the Soul the properties of a material substance. He considered its components to be light, mobile atoms of fire.

Plato had an understanding that was closer to the interpretation that we proposed based on the texts of Holy Scripture - the Bible. This and the disciple of Socrates recognized the Soul as an independent substance that lives in the body. Plato, considering this issue, assumed that this essence is divine and eternal, sublime and invisible. A student of Plato, Aristotle created a famous treatise, which is called "On the Soul". It denies that it can be a substance.

However, Aristotle, unlike the idealist philosophers, does not accept the consideration of the term separately from the living body (matter). He calls the main function of the Soul the realization of the biological functions of the body. If we return to Socrates, then this learned man devoted a lot to the study of the secrets of the universe and the consideration of the human essence. If we could ask him what the Soul is, then the answer would also seem similar to the biblical meaning of the word.

Socrates argued that during his life on Earth, a person prepares his Soul for its further existence. He believed that her real life begins only after the death of her physical body. This is approximately how this term is viewed by religion, meaning by it a certain entity that connects God with man. Even in it is written that after the Lord breathed into the crown of His creation, he became a living Soul.

Moreover, if you study carefully, you can pay attention to the fact that God also has a Soul. It also says that She can show certain emotions. For example: to love, to enjoy, to hate, to rejoice, to be sad, to be depressed, to be embarrassed. It is noteworthy that, according to the Bible, animals also have a spirit. The book of Ecclesiastes says that no one knows where he goes after their death. And in the 17th chapter of the book "Leviticus" (in 10-14 verses), there is a prohibition on eating the blood of animals.

It is prescribed to let the blood drain to the ground, and only then cook the caught bird or animal. The reason is that the soul of the animal is in this substance.

It turns out that the following answer can be given to the question of what a human or animal Soul is: "It is an immortal, immaterial entity that continues to live after the death of the physical body." Psychology, which owes its name to such a phrase as "the science of the soul", cannot be ignored either. In fact, she does not give an unambiguous answer to the question posed in this study.

Modern psychology is characterized by such a term as "psyche", which, in turn, consists of Subconsciousness, Consciousness and Superconsciousness. Indeed, it is impossible to study the Soul in a laboratory in some way. Accordingly, each person has the right to a personal understanding of this issue.

A lot has been written about what the Soul is, there are constant disputes and debates, even scientific conferences are held. But now, much more importantly, the majority of people and progressive scientists already recognize the existence of the Soul. Indeed, without the existence of the soul, absolutely everything, life itself and the very existence of man, would be meaningless. Read about some of the evidence and justifications in favor of the existence of the soul.

Let's consider the spiritual and esoteric Knowledge about the Soul.

What is the Human Soul? Only the most important

Soul Is Consciousness , an immortal part of a person that develops, gains its experience, incarnating on Earth in a human body and studying in.

Soul (Consciousness) - also consists of 12 main chakras, doubles (central and additional), information channels, energy flows, subtle bodies, a spiritual being and a divine spark (in the heart of a spiritual being).

The soul is created with the help of the gods () from the highest, most powerful and fastest divine energies for about 50,000 years, and it is created, as it is said in the Bible, in the image and likeness of the Creator.

In the image and likeness- means that in the human soul there is practically unlimited potential, and the possibility in the future, having gone through evolution on Earth, then in Space - to become the Creator of Universes (to create universes, their worlds and beings).

Because of its high destiny, the soul has the ability to gain immortality., which is originally inherent in its nature. But it must be said that not every soul, passing through evolution, receives such a right. If the soul, at a certain stage of the path, does not choose the Path of Light (entry into the Hierarchy of Light and Service to God), but chooses the dark path (service), and after multiple attempts of the Higher Forces to return a person to the true path, the soul still chooses the path of Evil - it loses immortality and is completely destroyed (when a critical volume of evil accumulates in the consciousness and the chances of returning and healing the Soul become equal to zero).

Life in the body is necessary for the Soul for accelerated development, due to the ability to accumulate large amounts of energy (thanks to the physical body). Development, thus, can be accelerated hundreds of times.

Who else doubts about the spiritual principle and the existence of the soul - read carefully.

Illusions and delusions about the Soul - debunking

1. Souls - no!

It is not true! 95% of the people of the earth, including leading scientists, believe in the existence of the soul. Tens of thousands of phenomena have been recorded, confirming the existence of the Soul, which materialistic science cannot explain. Hundreds of spiritual qualities that a Human possesses and which have no place in the physical body are direct confirmation that the soul exists. Read more about this.

2. The soul is a formless energy cloud that cannot be measured or defined in any way, since it has no structure!

That's bullshit! Absolutely any energy has its own structure. The human soul is even more so. Soul - has a very clear and complex structure (energy structure), mechanisms of formation and development. The soul can be perceived, seen in all details and studied in the same detail as the anatomy of the physical body of a person (only the soul is several orders of magnitude more complex in structure than the body). Its study is the next stage in the development of society in the knowledge of Man.

3. That the soul incarnates once, and then goes somewhere irrevocably, becomes impersonal (it completely dissolves in the energy of the universe or God), etc.

This is not true! Read more about the incarnations of the soul. The soul never loses its individuality (personal form and essence), even when it unites with the Creator (reaching the spiritual, absolute level of development and higher). Each soul has its own special individuality (purpose) by birth (from the moment of its creation), and has its own predetermined place in space, where it will have to fulfill its purpose after evolution on Earth.

Main characteristics of the Human Soul

• Soul - created by God (Absolute) in the image and likeness (potentially has the same structure as the soul of God)
• Soul - immortal, indestructible and indestructible (unless it is destroyed by God for Serving Evil, read above)
• Soul - pure and light by nature (created from light divine energies)
• The Human Soul has a clear, precise structure, which can be known
• The soul has almost endless potential for development and the opportunity to someday become the Creator of Universes
• Soul - subtly material , that is, invisible to physical eyes, but clearly visible with the help of astral vision
• Each Soul has its own personality , which is determined by a special purpose inherent in the creation of the Soul
• The soul develops on Earth through the physical body at an accelerated rate, but it can develop without it in (much slower)
• Each soul has all abilities and super abilities, which were manifested in at least one person (which is in one, that is, in each)
• Soul - can turn dark and be destroyed (lose immortality), through a very long accumulation of evil by a person (many incarnations in a row

The human soul can be described endlessly, we said only the essence, without details. Believe in your immortal Soul and do everything to learn to hear it! Do everything in the interests of your Soul, and never act against it!