Introduction
In Far Journeys Robert Monroe describes how, while out of his body and travelling with a guide, he watched ‘souls’ streaming into the Earth’s zone eager to experience physical life. The Buddha spoke of how desire caused cycles of rebirth and suffering. He taught how to quell desire and escape the compulsion for physical existence.
This scenario is expressed in numerous sources. But it is not yet part of our understanding of human psychology. That’s a pity because it leads to a powerful misdiagnosis of the human condition.
Consider this. Our planet’s population comprises souls at various stages of their experience of physical life. Some are ‘old souls’ and others are at early stages in their cycle of lives.
A soul’s personality is shaped by life experiences. Some crave danger and excitement, and others seek a gentler life of living in harmony with their surroundings. Some are born into trauma and violence and others into relative harmony and ease.
As well as this the organic nature of our bodies adds the dimension of instincts and reflexes. Contemporary psychology offers a deep insight into the way our organic aspect influences our behaviour and experiences.
We are 3-in-1. The soul and its attributes, the psychology of physical experiences and our organic body’s inherited traits, instincts and reflexes.
This being also engages with its environment. The soul interacts with other souls in ways that are mostly beyond our understanding. Our psychological self – the product of physical and non-physical experiences engages with lives that are both physical and non-physical. Our bodies are intimately bound up with lives in the physical world and engage with non-physical lives as well.
The fuller reality is more complex than this. What I want to do here is paint a quick picture of an idea that we are multi-dimensional and complex. No effort at comprehending human nature and behaviour can be successful without a willingness to be open to this complexity.
This isn’t ’spirituality’
What I have outlined above comes from many sources. Some will insist that this just a belief. Well, in a sense yes. But it is based on experience.
I argue that psychology and biology are both forms of spirituality in the sense that they explore the nature of being human. The sense of ‘spirit’ exists in each of the 3 dimensions of being human. There is the organic spirit of our physical body, as there is in our psychological make up. And, of course, there’s the ‘spirit’ in our souls.
Consequently, the term ‘spiritual’ should be either global or redundant.
I should note that I use the term ‘soul’ to mean that enduring essence of who we are. There are some who insist that that the term has a precise meaning and we should stick to it. But it’s a general non-technical term that will serve us well.
I want to think about being human in the fullest sense so there is no point in trying to have a separate category of spirituality. That means crafting a boundary between what is spiritual and what is not. That’s a tricky thing to do and tempts us into dogmas and conflicts over something that isn’t at all important.
There are important distinctions to be made about which agencies we can relate to and engage with. This why religious texts tell stories of deities as if they were human. Without that context, the stories would be incomprehensible. We explain the ‘invisible’ through the medium of the ‘visible’ in a sense.
Ideas of the holy or the sacred are ideas about real distinctions. They are not just sentiments or fancies. If one takes a materialist’s perspective, it simply screens out real things that become ‘not there’ – and then we lose the subtly of perception to become consciously aware of them.
We can make our minds like noise cancelling headphones that keep us hearing only what we feed in. Or we can be open to what is there. Calling this openness ‘spirituality’ misconstrues what is going on – especially because it is often another cancelling filter of belief and dogma.
We will do what meets our psychological needs (in all 3 respects).
Many ‘spiritual’ seekers are ignoring psychology just as many psychologists are ignoring the esoteric extension of their field. We need to remember where psyche comes from (please do explore it online). We have substituted soul for mind – a cultural choice rather than a rational one.
This hassled to the myth that ‘evolved’ humans are ‘rational’ and the intellect is our highest form of awareness. In fact, we feel more than we think and ‘dignify’ those feelings as thoughts. It’s not ‘bad ideas’ that get us into bother but the immature and ill-disciplined emotions we mingle with our instincts and impulses that cause so much peril.
Denial of soul as a reality or an idea is a choice made by those who are committed to materialism. There is some psychological satisfaction in closing off that dimension of being human. And there’s an existential drama in opening up the prospect.
We have become so accustomed to developing, and confidently expressing, an opinion based on zero serious research. Between this and entrenched ideological biases that produce concrete dogma we have missed so much.
It is still common to hear “We do not know whether there is life after death.” (We do). “Nobody has ever returned from ‘beyond the grave’” (They have) “We do not know what happens when we die.” (We do).
A more truthful rendition of these laments would be to replace the “We” with “I”. But then that must force the admission that “I don’t know because I don’t want to/I am afraid to. “
Psychologically, dogmas create boundaries behind which we can craft a sense of personal safety. We can use them to ward off unwanted senses of exposure to a profound existential reality.
This is something we all must go through on our way to genuine awareness of who and what we are.
In what might seem like a paradoxical way, religion can be used in such a manner. A determined dogma can become an impenetrable self-soothing fog in which the believer safely resides. This isn’t an insult. It can be a safe zone in which psychological growth or healing can take place. Exposing oneself to the greater existential reality isn’t for everyone at any given time. And when the time comes, it isn’t necessarily a joyous event at first. It can be many years (and maybe many lifetimes) of struggling to release oneself from psychological processes that are somewhere between maintaining a barrier and tearing it down.
Opposition to the flesh
Various spiritual and religious movements express an aversion to the flesh and material life in general.
This creates a contradictory perception that physical life is unworthy, a trap of souls, a debasement of spirit. This a dogmatic interpretation of part of a deeper truth. Physical life is esteemed as a realm of growth, but in the cycle of things there will come a time when it’s time to move on. Those who are at the stage of needing to move on will understandably frame physical life as being a negative experience. It is for some – at the right time. For others physical life will be compulsively gratifying. But for others it will be a balance of proper pleasure and restraint.
This should remind us that many religious claims are represented as being universally true when they are true and relevant only to people at a particular stage in their existence.
The abandonment of institutional religion reflects important signs of our times. The claim of universally applicable dogma is rejected by people who see their life priorities and experiences as inconsistent with established systems.
Understanding being human
To me the deeper knowledge that allows us to stitch together a full picture of being human is not yet available in a secular sense. There will be groups who have strong esoteric knowledge foundations but not all of them honour contemporary knowledge in psychology, biology and neuroscience. This is a future potential.
There are contentious claims made about fusions of our biology and technology which are driven by what seems to be dogmatic materialism.
We struggle to imagine the human future in a collective sense because so many conflicting models of being human are clung to with deep passion.
Yet the knowledge we need is available to those who go looking for it. But its not in a widely digestible form. That’s some time away. This does mean that there’s exciting opportunities for creative synthesists to develop new narratives about being human. This means stepping away from the habit of competitive knowledge seeking and embracing collaborative insight sharing. This is a mutual adventure.
Conclusion
There are multiple commentaries asserting that humanity is in for a shake up in the foreseeable future. Many try to predict that future from a singular perspective.
I agree about the shakeup. It’s been going on for centuries. But I don’t pretend to understand where it is going beyond anticipating that we will adapt to the evolutionary pressures we are under – even if things might be tough for a while.
Part of this shake up is the loosening of structures – of living together, of thought, of our sense of relating to the reality beyond our modest bubble.
Toward the end of 2024 an astrologer, thinking about the year ahead and beyond, offered a piece of canny advice, “Don’t hold on too tightly.” He didn’t say anything about what to. It could be cherished beliefs. It could be ideas. It could be lifestyles. It could be our ideas about what it is to be human.
There are many times in our lives when relaxing is the best option even when we are awash in a sense of threat. If we tighten up, we rob ourselves of the potential to adapt nimbly.
How we imagine being human cannot grow to the potential it has if we cling to beliefs and dogmas that are inconsistent with the scope of human experience and which reflect a narrow slit through which we fearfully peer at what is around us.
We have devalued our ancestors, presuming them to be less capable than we are. That’s not true at all. We can hide in our cultural bubble with its glittering conceits, or we can explore what is known about being fully human with open-hearted humility. It’s our choice.