Life is not a school for the soul
This isn't an essay but a series of my comments and replies to others' comments on various YouTube videos (e.g., on NDEs and other spiritual topics) where someone mentioned the popular idea that the soul is on an evolutionary journey across many lives, or something at least related to that.
I will also note at the outset that, despite the seemingly confident and even provocatively spicy phrasing of the title, I'm actually agnostic on the question of whether a) there's a soul, and b) it's learning, growing, or evolving. So, what follows is just me expressing my opinion on the matter, as well as attempting to substantiate why I hold that view.
Ω
If all of reality is truly one, why the need for lessons? Who is learning, and to what end? Is there an end?
I will just add that these are not my questions, but are being posed here rhetorically. So many new agers talk about the fundamental unity of all, but few seem to grok the implications of that; specifically, it doesn’t really jibe with the idea of lessons needing to be learned, or of growth needing to be undergone.
The view that life is a school for the soul, and that the soul is on a neverending (?) journey of growth and learning, is new age 101. It’s a popular belief, though I’ve long found it an odd source of inspiration for so many people, as the idea of being stuck in school forever just doesn’t sound that enticing, nor does it ring true to me. Rather, as Alan Watts pointed out, life seems more like a dance, the “purpose” of which is simply to experience dancing, not to progress toward a culminating point of the dance, which is what endless learning seems to imply.
Ω
An "enlightened" acquaintance of mine used to recommend keeping what he called the "back of the book" answers in mind, which is advice I've always appreciated and found useful. So, to use my case as an example: the common idea that existence in whatever form is compulsory, and that it's a sort of mandatory school for the soul, and that said soul will or must evolve through a seemingly neverending series of ordeals to achieve _______ (?)—an idea which, incidentally, seems very attractive to lots of new age people, among others—has always been utterly abhorrent to me. Not only that, but it doesn't really make sense or ring true, because if reality is ultimately unbound, infinite, and nondual (which I think it is), then why would this no-thing that is already all-and-everything need to evolve or learn or do or be anything? Rather, what rings true to me is the notion that this is indeed a dreamlike play, and so no matter how painful and seemingly horrific (or wonderful and blissful) the experience, all is allowed and embraced precisely because it's ultimately ephemeral and nothing's at stake, because the whole tragicomic phantasmagoria is not other than one truly is, which is already perfectly free.
(And notice that no matter what's going on in so-called 'waking life,' there's always total relief for a few paradoxically timeless hours every 24 hour period: deep, dreamless sleep, a.k.a., the bliss of sinking into one's true nature of consciousness without a subject or object.)
In pondering this, the evidence I've found to support this view that it's all a dreamlike play, and not a punishment or life-sentence or endless learning experience, is that whenever something in my life has come along to provide a deep (if all too momentary) sense of being relieved of sustained suffering or pain in any form, there's been an instant sense of largess of spirit that has a retroactive effect on all the suffering before it: that is, from the vantage point of radical freedom from pain and suffering, no price seems too high, and no experience seems unfair. All is forgiven. I suspect this hints at a more fundamental cosmic principle. Then again, I don't claim to know this with absolute certainty. It's just the only view I've come to that both rings true and has at least a hint of soteriological (liberational) efficacy. FWIW.
I just want to add that I'm aware of how speculative and abstract some of this might sound, but for me such ponderings and considerations, and whatever gleanings and adumbrations might result, are and always have been intensely meaningful and therapeutic. I've never been drawn to metaphysical speculation for its own sake; the engine of such ponderings has in my case always been mortal crisis (suicidal longing and preparation).
Ω
The idea of human existence being like a school for the soul's learning and growth is utterly contraindicated by the fact that almost no one can recall anything of other lives. Imagine if, every time you woke up from a night of sleep, you couldn't remember anything you'd learned the previous day. Clearly, in order for learning and growing to take place, there can't be a complete memory wipe and reset between one instantiation of life and the next.
This doesn't mean any given instantiation of life is a "one and done" affair, as materialism holds. It might just mean that life is eternal (or eternally recurring) but doesn't have a cosmic purpose, and doesn't need one. In fact, each of our lives seems to bear this out completely: with no memory of having lived before, or of a "soul purpose," we all come to make whatever meaning of life we're drawn to make—including beliefs ranging from "life is random and meaningless" to "life is a school for the soul," and pretty much anything else.
Ω
This is one point on which I've tended to diverge from the common view among NDErs and various new age believers alike. I won't go into detail, because it isn't relevant to the present discussion, other than to just say that I don't subscribe to the view that we're souls on an neverending (and conveniently linear) journey of learning and evolving. It's perfectly okay for someone to believe that, but it isn't my view.
Ω
Regarding "learning," I would say that my stated misgivings aren't based on any specific conception of that word. In fact, it doesn't even mean that I don't consider learning per se to be a quintessential aspect of this "dream of separation." I do, but only during a single life. What I don't buy is the conventional reincarnation angle which holds that the narrative of one's life is part of a vast meta-narrative spanning countless (and, of course, always conveniently linear) lives.
Consider this: almost no one, including believers in past lives, actually remembers having lived before. And yet, despite this life feeling like the first and only life ever (which, in the timeless eternity of source, it paradoxically is), one's seemingly separate little life is experienced as deeply precious and momentous and meaningful. Similarly, when you dream at night, each dream is more or less unique and unconnected to previous or subsequent dreams. There's no need to find (or construct) a narrative thread connecting those dreams in order to make them into something "more." Each one is sufficient unto itself.
My point is that, with or without a belief in any form of soul growth or learning over countless interconnected lives, one's present life is intrinsically meaningful already.
Ω
Here's the thing: if the idea is that one is meant to become immersed in and absorbed by the particulars of one's life story, I completely agree. My view (borne of transpersonal insight and awakening) is that there is only source (or god, or brahmin, or whatever you take to be ultimate or fundamental). And so, the idea of forgetting one's true nature as source in order to enjoy an immersive experience as something other than the whole of reality rings completely true to me.
However, that's not exactly the idea I was responding to. Rather, it's the idea that one is a soul on a neverending journey of countless lives for the express purpose of learning and growing that I was calling into question. What I'm saying is that, for me personally, the "learning and growing" part is an overlay of belief that isn't necessary in order for life to be every bit as valuable and meaningful as it already is. Now, if you find yourself attracted to that belief (and again, it's clear that many do), that's great. It's not that I want to talk you or anyone else out of believing that, it's just that I find attempts to justify it don't add up.
Ω
Actually, my own view is that questions about any kind of universal meaning or purpose are misguided, as they presuppose that life or reality simply must have a reason for being what it is—or for being at all. I call it teleocentrism, which can be considered a specific expression of anthropocentrism.
Ω
Another metaphor that everyone can relate to is dreaming: every night "you" turn up in any of countless scenarios, often completely nonsensical, though sometimes poignant and even realistic. But upon waking, the entire dreamworld and your apparent proxy within it vanishes, and you don't mourn this disappearance in the slightest. Similarly, if your dream avatar was in the middle of a journey somewhere when you woke up, you don't wonder if your dream avatar went on to complete the trip.
I think the same is true with life, because in a sense this is a kind of dream as well. If "you" were to wake up with either no memories at all, or a completely different set of memories, you wouldn't know the difference any more than your dream avatar knows the difference each night in your dreams. You would just take yourself to be—and to have always been—that particular "you" indicated by those particular memories.
Ω
When you wake up from a dream, you don't mourn the loss of whatever character(s) had been playing out in the dream. Likewise, if you dreamed you were on a journey and were about to board a plane when you woke up from the dream, you wouldn't wonder if your dream self ever got to her destination. Similarly, if someone—including you yourself—falls from an impossible height in a dream, no one actually dies or even gets hurt.
In other words, the dream is an ephemeral expression of mind, but from the perspective of an apparent character within the dream, it's quite real and serious. It's only from the perspective of waking that the ephemeral nature of the dream is seen and understood. What NDErs and mystics alike are saying is that there's a comparable relationship between this life and ultimate reality as between dreams and waking. Each of us is an identified character while immersed in the dream of life, where everything feels real and significant. But that which is dreaming any and all such characters ultimately transcends them.
Ω
From my own perspective, liberation or enlightenment doesn't mean getting off some wheel of birth and death, i.e. avoiding reincarnation, but realizing that what one truly is has never been in-carnated in the first place, and so there's nothing to be freed from but ignorance of what one is. I know this won't be immediately apparent to most, and I don't expect anyone reading this to simply accept it because they might like the sound of it. But for me, at least, it's not only true, it's a truth that's far simpler than the usual interpretations of rebirth and other metaphysical grand narratives.
Regarding ideas about death and what might come after, yes, it's all speculation. Whether one has had a profound realization of nonduality, or perhaps a near-death experience, the most you can say with rock bottom certainty is what doesn't happen at death—namely, the once-and-for-all ("forever and ever") oblivion that materialism naïvely promises. But anything highly specific, such as an afterlife or reincarnation or traversing bardo realms, is sheer speculation. It's simply not possible to know what's in store the next moment, let alone beyond an existential event horizon like death.
Ω
For what it's worth, my view is that there's no such thing as a wrong death (and by "wrong" I'm also including the belief that it might've been avoided if only x, y, or z). Yes, on one level suicide is tragic and painful for those left behind, but for all anyone really knows, there's a deeper level at which this was exactly the way that particular individual was meant to move to whatever might be "next" (at the risk of reifying a timeline).
Ω
The interpretation of karma as actions from previous lives that adversely affect the present life is essentially no different from the concept of original sin in Christianity. According to the latter, one’s lot in life is due to the misguided actions of ancient forebears, while the former puts it all on the misguided actions of numberless previous incarnations. Either way, it's a matter of sheer speculation that's as unhelpful as it is completely unverifiable. I would argue that the actual causes of many of one's most problematic behavioral patterns can be found right here in one's present life. This would seem to be a far more helpful and compassionate (not to mention experientially verifiable) way of framing the notion of karma, in my opinion.
Similarly, the idea that the present life is a kind of remedial classroom that's preparing one to graduate to something much better at some point in the future is a subtly pernicious and devaluing way of framing existence, and one that is (once again) heavily influenced by conventional Judeo-Christian ideas of human existence being a sort of cosmic error that's put right in heaven (or, in this case, in the timeless eternity of "Oneness" or "Light" or "Source").
To be clear, I'm not saying that one shouldn't strive to be a better, kinder, more considerate person, still less that one shouldn't bother with waking up to one's true nature; of course that's good, solid advice for all of us! Rather, what I'm taking issue with is this all-too-common metaphysical idea that there's some ultimate finish line which, once crossed, means that one abides uninterruptedly as formless source, with the corollary that the present life is a sort of necessary evil that must be endured until transcendence is eventually attained. This is an idea that I feel misses something crucial and true about what manifestation—and, indeed, one's very nature—fundamentally IS.
I usually refrain from citing or referring to other thinkers, as my views are based on my own direct insights rather than any supposed authority's testimony, but I think Alan Watts had the right idea that framing life as a journey is inaccurate. Instead, life is more like a dance, which doesn't have a culminating point which the whole activity is moving toward, nor any particular "point" or purpose outside of just a spontaneous expression of human energy. In this regard, where it comes to religious or philosophical conceptions, I think the Hindu notion of Lila (divine play) probably comes closest to expressing the truth about existence.
From this Lila-informed awakened perspective, source is no more bound by any of the apparent forms it takes during life than the source of dreams is bound by any of the forms a dream might take—including terrifying and nightmarish forms. In this regard, I would say that the real import and impact of awakening isn't to transcend life by stepping off some wheel of birth and death, but to reveal that one was never bound by any such cycles in the first place. That said, simply believing (or trying to believe) this likely won't be helpful. One has to "make the trip" of rooting out one's deepest longing and following it to its ultimate resolution.
Which brings me to a question the interviewer brought up in this video: essentially, why take form as a suffering somebody instead of remaining as blissful formless source? The guest never actually answered the question, even though he purported to do so. As I see it, ultimate "why" questions—like Zen koans—are not answerable conceptually or abstractly, the way mundane "why" questions usually are. This doesn't mean that ultimate "why" questions ("why is there something rather than nothing;" "why leave the realm of love and light only to struggle to return to it," etc.) don't have a resolution—I would say they most certainly do. But the resolution entails a transformation of the root of identity which renders the original "why" question moot or irrelevant. Basically, one doesn't get an answer so much as lose the question.
I think that the way towards this resolution or transformation is to find how that primordial "why" question is expressing itself in a very specific and personal way in your own life; that is, what is your real question or koan? What is your search in this life really about?