Klaus Klostermaier

Part One
NB. The footnotes for this article are linked to a separate footnote page.

Preface/Postscript
I deeply appreciated the invitation from Shaunaka Rishi and Anuttama Dasa to prepare the Christian position paper for this conference, and I enjoyed the warm atmosphere created by our friendly hosts. When preparing my manuscript I was naturally aware of significant doctrinal differences between not only the various branches of Christendom, but also between traditional and progressive thinkers in one and the same denomination. I intended to give a summary of what I thought was mainstream traditional Christian teaching on the soul and its destiny, beginning with a study of some Biblical notions relating to soul, giving an outline of Thomas Aquinas' and mediaeval official Church teaching, providing some mystical-experiential accounts, summarising a major contemporary Roman Catholic theologian's view on the "destiny of the soul", mentioning some major modern challenges to Christian views of the soul and ending with a few personal/critical remarks on the issue.

I came away from the meeting with the impression that there is not a single statement regarding the nature and destiny of the soul that would be accepted by all Christian denominations. The doctrinal development in the various Christian denominations, and the disinterest shown by many contemporary Christians in any formulations of "metaphysical doctrines" has reached a point where it is pretty meaningless to speak of a "Christian position" on questions like the soul and its destiny vis-a-vis e.g., a Vaishnava position. It would be possible-as was suggested by one participant-to compare and contrast the teaching on soul of, for instance, Thomas Aquinas and Jiva Goswami; however, it was widely felt that such a comparison would be rather useless. The emphasis, all were agreed, should be on contemporary perceptions, and a perceived relevance to the questions of our age and day.

The following write-up does not claim to reflect the collective thinking on the soul and its destiny of the individual Christians present at the gathering (none of whom came in any official function), but is offered as a historic document and as a point of departure for the discussion which proved to be lively as well as going in many different directions.

Biblical Background
Since this paper is meant to prepare a dialogue with Vaishnavism, the horizon of the "soul-dialogue" must encompass not only Western philosophical and theological Christian psyche notions, but must cover all notions contained in the Indian notion of jivatman. Accordingly, the Biblical background will include notions of "life" and "spirit" over and above "soul".

Life (Hebrew chaim ; Greek zoe; Latin: vita) is one of the most fundamental concepts of the Bible. "The living God" is a standing expression, as compared with the "dead idols".1 God is "life-giving-spirit", and life is the most precious possession of man. Life is not seen only in terms of modern medicine and biology, as a mere physico-chemical mechanism, but it is the whole of existence, feeling, thinking, knowing God. Life is something divine-only God can give it. Genesis relates that humans got their life through a special and immediate act of God. Life in the proper sense is union with God; the sinner is "dead", even if biological life is still going on. Life is thus the most cherished treasure of humans, identical with God's blessing, merit, good-whereas death is synonymous with sin, God's curse, evil. Since sin has deprived humans of their true life-the union with God-the purpose of salvation is to restore the life. Christ calls himself "life". 2 God is life, and can give life. "Life" is the state of the redeemed ones, a life which is the fruit of the redemption through Christ, which will last forever. "Eternal life" is not something which comes "after death", but it is the divine life, which is already in those who have received salvation. Life is essentially seen as a process of communication, whose source is "the living God". The conditions to receive it are faith in Christ, 3 good works, love of neighbour especially,4 baptism and Eucharist.5 Baptism is described as the "dying with Christ and rising with Christ to a new life in God".6

Soul (Latin: anima) is the translation of the Biblical nephesh and psyche, and etymologically both contain the idea of breath, blowing, drawing breath. Sometimes psyche is used simply as a synonym for life, or the principle of life,7 or for "living being"-either animal or man;8 in other places it means the principle which is opposed to the body,9 which is immortal and which is man's most valuable "part": "What does it profit you if you gain the whole world and lose your soul? What can you give in exchange for your soul?" 10 And: "There is no need to fear those who kill the body but have no means of killing the soul; fear him more, who has the power to ruin body and soul in hell".11 The use of the term "soul" in the Bible is far from uniform-it is not used in a philosophical way. "Soul" signifies the spiritual principle of humans coming from God and somehow remaining forever.

Spirit (Hebrew: ruah; Greek: pneuma; Latin: spiritus) is used often in the Bible in different senses. Sometimes it is a synonym for life, soul or living being, people.12 Occasionally it stands for the seat of feelings, thoughts, intentions. Sometimes pneumata (spirits) describes the deceased ones.13 With Paul we find very often spirit as the opposite to "flesh" (sarx). Spirit stands for union with God, and thus also the body of the redeemed ones (as referred to here, the body of the risen Christ) is "spirit", whereas the whole existence of the sinner, who is "far from God", is "flesh".14 Spirit is the divine power which justifies and sanctifies; flesh is the weakness in which sin is dwelling and thriving. This "spirit" is the "spirit of Christ"-the faithful become "One spirit with Christ."15

There are some more expressions in the Bible which could be used in order to show how "soul" is to be understood: we find sometimes human essence expressed as "the heart" (Hebrew: leb; Greek: kardia). Also "flesh" is used as expressing human existence, not just in the negative sense. The terminology of the Bible is far from uniform, and we do not find clear definitions of the term. Life, soul and spirit stand for a reality which is transcategorical. The Bible wants to make clear that the whole existence of humans is from God, and depends on God, who is the "living God".

The Theology of the Early Church and the Middle Ages
When Christianity came into contact with Greek philosophy it had to give an answer to the problems posed by Greek philosophers. Greek philosophy had already coined definite, mutually exclusive, concepts of body and mind, matter and spirit, it had a "body-soul-problem" which was unknown to the Bible.

According to Plato the soul had a pre-existence as a pure spirit in the realm of ideas. For some fault it had been imprisoned in a body, and its liberation, its freedom, the regaining of its own true nature, could only be through discarding the body. In the Epicurean school the soul was considered to be inseparably connected with matter. The death of the body meant the annihilation of the "soul". The Aristotelians raised problems concerning the origin of the soul, the existence of separate spiritual substances, the nature of the soul, and the relation of body and soul. Representatives of all schools, who had become Christians, tried to interpret the Christian message in their respective terminology.

It is interesting to observe that the early Church saw a threat against its "soul- doctrine" coming more from the "spiritualistic" schools than from "materialistic" doctrines. Therefore, the Apologetes of the first and second century sometimes use expressions which overemphasise the opposition to Neo-Platonism, sometimes calling the soul "material and naturally mortal". Tertullian in his De Anima seems to think of the soul as made of a very subtle material substance.

Manichaeism and Priscillianism tried to divide reality into two hostile camps: the realm of God, spirit and light on the one side, and the realm of the devil, body and darkness on the other. The Councils of the Church opposed such a dualistic concept of reality. They taught that the substance of the soul was not identical with the substance of God, nor could it be considered a part, or transformation of a part of it.16 The body was not a creature of the devil, but was created by God, and therefore in its nature good.17 Marriage, instituted for the propagation of the human race was not a devilish and sinful institution, but ordained by God and made a sacrament.18 The human body received through Christ's redemption a dignity of its own and will rise again for life eternal. 19 Human souls did not have any pre-existence in heaven before they were united with the body, and it is not because of some fault or sin of the soul that it becomes embodied.20 The soul is not transmitted by the parents through natural generation, but is created individually by God.21 In death the soul becomes neither one with the substance of God, nor does it perish altogether.22

One of the questions repeatedly discussed throughout antiquity concerned the time at which soul and body are united. Aristotelian philosophers thought of a successive animation of the body: in the moment of conception the body had only a "plant soul", some months later this would be replaced by an "animal soul", and only at birth the "spiritual-soul" would be given. The Christian philosophers used the categories shaped by Greek philosophy, not always fully aware that by doing so they shifted the centre of the Biblical teaching. They no longer dealt with the human person as whole, but with a "part", with "soul." For centuries Aristotle's Peri psyches was the great textbook of philosophical psychology. The greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages wrote commentaries on it. Thomas Aquinas, whose De Anima is a classical treatise of mediaeval psychology, lists the following questions:

Can the soul be a form and a particular thing?
Is the soul, so far as its act of existing is concerned, separated from the body?
Is there one possible intellect, or intellective soul, for all humans?
Is it necessary to admit that an agent intellect exists?
Is there one separately existing agent intellect for all humans?
Is the soul composed of matter and form?
Should the rational soul be united to a body such as humans possess?
Is the soul united to corporeal matter through a medium?
Are the rational, sentient and vegetative souls substantially one and the same?
Is the soul its powers?
Are the powers of the soul distinguished from one another by their objects?
Is the human soul incorruptible?
Is the soul, when separated from the body, capable of understanding?
When the soul is united to the body, can it understand separate substances?
When the soul is separated from the body, can it understand separate substances?
When separated from the body can the soul know all natural things?
When separated from the body can the soul suffer punishment by corporeal fire?

 In response to the opposition of Manichaean dualism Aquinas emphasises that the union of body and soul is essential for humans, and that it is to the advantage of both body and soul. "To be united to body is not to the detriment of the soul but to its enrichment. There is the substantial benefit of completing human nature, and the accidental benefit of achieving knowledge that can only be acquired through the senses".23 He says that our body substance is not from an evil principle, as the Manichaeans imagine, but from God. "By the friendship of charity, by which we love God should we cherish the body."24 In his opinion the psycho-somatic interdependence goes so far that the quality of intellectual life depends on the quality of the body. When the body is a hindrance for the achievements of the higher aims of human life, it is not due to its being body, but to sin which corrupts the body and disturbs the harmony between body and soul.25

Another major problem was that of the "oneness of the intellect". The back- ground lies in the Aristotelian concept of mind. Human understanding comes about by an active process of the mind by which mind abstracts from the (passive) objects an "idea" and makes it its own, "assimilating" it to its own nature. To make this possible, Aristotle had to assume a distinction in mind itself: an active mind, which provides for the contact with the outside world and which delivers to the "passive mind" the ideas, the abstractions of things. "Passive mind" is a mere interiorising faculty and intellect proper.

But then how to explain the objectivity of human knowledge, the likeness of ideas and understanding? Aristotle left this question open. The great Arab interpreters of Aristotle, Averroes (Ibn Rosd 1126-98) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina 980-1037), tried to explain it by some kind of "super-mind", an intellect which is common to all humans. They asserted either that the active mind was common in the passive individual, or that the passive mind was common in the active individual. Thomas rejects this doctrine, which contains the danger of doing away with personal responsibility and the individuality of men.26

Human souls are manifold, and their oneness is not one of substance, but of species. The "objectivity" and likeness in understanding comes from the sameness of nature, not from the sameness of existence. As bodies are different, the souls which are their specific "form" are bound to be different.27 Against this background Aquinas defends the individual immortality of the soul. After death the soul does not merge into any "supersoul", neither separated substance nor Absolute, but remains an indi- vidual human soul and capable of either beatitude or damnation: "Mind is not composed of matter and form, for its ideas are not physical but spiritual as their universality declares, they are abstract and not tied down to matter or to the material conditions of time and place. The mind is, therefore, a subsisting form, and is consequently immortal." 28

One of the favourite topics of mediaeval philosophy was speculation about "separate substances", beings that are pure spirit. The profound discussions about their location, their kind and method of knowing, and their relation with the world of matter have lost much of our interest. (It is interesting to note that theoretical physicists have resurrected some of these problems and terminology in their description of the mode of existence of subatomic particles.) One topic, however, has gained more interest in our times: the concept of "person". Thomas defines person in a very gen- eral manner, as "individual substance of a spiritual nature". Thus, it applies to hu- mans, angels and God. It does not express any kind of limitation or restriction, but on the contrary, it means the highest perfection in its order of being. It is a "name of eminence".

Person ranks highest in the metaphysical scale of being. Person means something unique, ineffable, a value in itself, an end in itself. Person as such is indestructible. The ultimate stage of perfection is therefore not a merging of created persons into the uncreated (personal) Absolute, but a communion of persons, a "being face to face", a "dialogue", between God and humans.

While most of the psychological and anthropological problems of mediaeval theology have lost their actual importance, the problem of "person" has become the central issue of both modern philosophical anthropology, as well as modern sociology. The human understood as person is the end to which all non-personal values have to be referred. It sets definite limits to the impersonal powers such as state, party, nation or economy. It is the personality of every human which distinguishes human society from an ant hill, which makes human history different from natural history, which gives a sense and a richness to human life.

Part Two

Vaishnava Perspectives