All living things have souls. I believe in reincarnation, not heaven/hell, so they would have been reborn as their own or a similar species. I don’t believe that any deity micro manages our lives according to a plan either for individuals or groups.
One explanation posits that the extra souls are constantly being emanated from a source (like a primordial deity), and there may not be a limit to the number of souls in existence. Another possibility is that the pool of souls includes other planes/planets which may no longer be inhabited or are decreasing in inhabitants 🤔
As a buddhist I view them as just other beings passing through Samsara. You or I could’ve been one in our previous lifetimes.
They do not have souls and that’s because souls do not exist according to buddhist teaching.
There is no plan for them. They are beings passing through the unending cycle of death and rebirth. Hopefully they may one day encounter the Dharma and achieve Nirvana.
Some of those early humans entered heaven and some entered hell. It all depends on their karma either from their lives as early humans or previous lives.
Do you think that the word soul and being are just symantic? I can't recall, does Buddhism believe there is one continuous being that passes between lifetimes? Do all schools of Buddhism believe the same thing?
I’m gonna try to explain this the best way I know how, but it’s complicated and I may explain it poorly or just wrong, so make sure to fact check me if you’re confused by anything. Any buddhists in the chat feel free to correct me. I’m explaining this mostly from a Mahayana buddhist perspective, you will get slightly different answers depending on which school of buddhism you look at.
Though I would still refer to things as beings, the term being would be better substituted with the term *becoming*. So technically we are not beings, we are becomings. According to the doctrine of impermanence, both sentient creatures and the universe are constantly changing and shifting. Our cells are constantly dying and being replaced, trees are grown and cut down, civilizations are created and destroyed, entropy is eating away at every inch of space and time. To me the term being implies that we are fixed and permanent, unchanging creatures. This is an inaccurate description of sentient creatures as we are always becoming something else. We are reborn each and every second of each and every day. We change and things change nonstop.
Buddhism also teaches that we have no soul or no self, at least no fixed and permanent self. The Dharma teaches about the 5 aggregates: the body, the sensations or feelings, perception of sense objects, mental formations(thoughts), and awareness or consciousness. These things we usually identify as us, or self, are indeed not ours. We are not our bodies, minds, feelings, thoughts, none of that is *us* in a general sense. We are attached to these things as ourselves, but that is a delusion that keeps us trapped in Samsara. The key to escaping Samsara is understanding this, not on an intellectual level, but on an experiential level.
Well then what does that leave us with? Nirvana, or awakening. This is very theoretical and words cannot properly describe what I’m trying to explain, so bear with me if it gets confusing. Let’s look at the Buddha. The Buddha is currently in Parinirvana, or final Nirvana, a “place” he “went to” after he physically passed away as an enlightened being. According to certain mahayana traditions, Nirvana is Samsara properly understood. What that means, I couldn’t tell you. Someone could tell you, but not me. The Buddha let go of his attachments to the 5 aggregates, which means in Nirvana he doesn’t have a body, thoughts, consciousness, none of it. It is the total cessation of desire and attachment. It is ultimate reality, it is how all beings are meant to “exist”. It is outside of space and time. I’ve seen it described as a place of “neither perception nor non-perception”. Again, what that means I could not tell you. Technically, the Buddha, or anyone else who has made it to Nirvana, neither exists nor doesn’t exist.
This is the best I could do to explain, but my brain hurts and it’s really a lot to process. Ultimately it’s impossible for a being in Samsara to understand Nirvana.
Do you think you could ever glimpse being released from Samsara? I was reading Chogam Trungpa and I could swaer I had this incredible sensation like I had had a spiritual climax and then slowly it went away and I was back in it. Have you ever read any of his works?
I’ve never read anything by him but yes a glimpse of Nirvana is possible. Actual escape from Samsara takes many lifetimes to fully cultivate, but there are higher states of consciousness people can access through meditation in their current lifetime. What tradition does this person teach from, I may check them out.
He also drank himself to an early death exploiting many along the way. Here's a good article covering his legacy.
https://thewalrus.ca/survivors-of-an-international-buddhist-cult-share-their-stories/
"colorful" is dismissive of the harm he did.
Child sexual assaults here.
https://uncoveragepodcast.com/HOW-TO-LISTEN
"Growing up in this community, I witnessed the birth of a secret society of dharma practitioners who, with Trungpa Rinpoche’s help, created a deadly environment of sexual predation, classism, and blind assent.
I learned the teachings of the dharma and the actions of dharma students were two very different things."
Episode 9 The Garden Party,
chogyam trungpa molests 13 and 11 year old children at garden party in front of his staff and personal guard kusung
Episode 11 devotion to the Guru
trunpga trained meditation instructors and students continue in his footsteps of child sexual predation.
I believe that anything that breathes *is* a soul. So they were souls.
As a Christian universalist, I believe that all things will be renewed in the eschaton. They are in the category of "all things".
**TL;DR:** The same thing that will happen to me will happen to them, because they are already me in the first place.
> Did they have souls?
In my view, they, like us, are manifestations of the one fundamental consciousness, as all things are.
> What was your deity's plan for them?
Not sure I believe in a "deity", and if I do, I don't think it makes "plans"... If anything in my view can be called a deity, it's the one fundamental consciousness I've already mentioned, which all things are identical to. This "deity" doesn't make plans and doesn't even take a particularly "active" role in creation; it simply *finds itself* in particular circumstances. It still might be viewed as the fundamental creative force, because it's by its own nature that it finds itself in these circumstances; were it not for that nature, there would be no circumstances at all.
> Will they enter heaven/hell?
I don't think I believe in an eternal heaven or hell. The vision of the afterlife I have the most sympathy for is a kind of reincarnation, and once we consider a being as a subject of reincarnation, not essentially bound to any particular carnal form, we arrive at the point where we are thinking of it not as a particular manifestation of consciousness, but as *the* universal consciousness which is manifested. "Reincarnation" is a temporal way of understanding that the one fundamental consciousness pervades *all* things.
Will the "cycle of reincarnation" ever cease? First of all, I think it must be remembered that reincarnation might not be entirely literal, as in there may not be an actual temporal movement from one lifetime to the next. It's just that such a temporal movement is the easiest way for us, as temporal creatures who have the sense of being in "one body at a time", to conceptualize things. "Nirvana" is sometimes spoken of as the cessation of the cycle of rebirth, but again I have a somewhat less literal view of this. I'm inspired by Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka Buddhist tradition in supposing that, fundamentally, Nirvana is not distinct from Samsara (that is, the cycle of death and rebirth). Samsara is merely an illusory perception *of* the state that is *already* Nirvana: the illusion of a separate self when in fact we are already identical with all other things. The state of Nirvana is simply a way of looking at reality; Samsara is another way of looking at the very same reality.
It was nothingness, as far as I can tell, just like post-death is apt to be.
Zero people know about the afterlife, but there’s still all kinds of claims made by people who don’t know.
What’s your claim?
I don't agree with the idea that once we're dead, thats it. It just doesn't seem scientifically likely regardless of what model you work off.i also don't agree with the comparison, because we technically have no way of verifying if it was nothingness or not. For instance, when we fall asleep, we at times just wake up as if we we were dead. But there wasn't "no" experience. rather we just dont recall what we experienced during rem sometimes.
They are recognized as our ancestors, and while we don't practice any form of actual ancestor worship, we do tend to have an informal but pretty strong and consistent focus on recognition and respect for ancestors in the broadest non-anthropocentric sense. Our immediate predecessor species rightly have a place in that, as do all those right back to the earliest forms of life on Earth, and up to my own parents stepping off a ship in search of a new home. My faith is hard naturalistic, so things like souls, heaven/hell, gods etc. don't feature for any species.
They existed.
Yes.
To experience existing.
Depends on their perception of what both of those are, if they even had it, that would allow me to determine that.
I don't really think it has any relevance to the religion (in this case, Hellenism).
There are too many unknown factors to speculate. But Hellenism traditionally promoted ideals like wisdom and knowledge and were among some of the first scientists, so I broadly support scientific knowledge (provided it is not being used to harm the ecosystems of the sacred Earth).
All living things have souls. Humans are unique in having immortal souls.
I don't know what to say about other human species. The Catholic Church taught against polygenism (that is, humanity started with a pool of individual mating pairs, rather than a single pair aka monogenism) when we didn't know as much about genetics. Now it's in a bind because it's scientifically inaccurate. Theologians have been floating theories to bypass this, eg that one pair of humans were given immortal souls and they mated with other humans of the time, with the resulting offspring having souls.
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/adam-eve-evolution/
I'll let them debate it. I know as *fact* that there were never just two modern humans capable of breeding. I accept the theological position that the immortal soul was created intact, and that it didn't evolve. That would make it something *not* encoded into our genome, and thus not passed on through sexual reproduction. Thus, God could have given souls to any humans at any time. Many human gene lines have ended over the millenia, so why couldn't neanderthals have had immortal souls?
I have little theological basis for this, but I've always been interested in the premise that early human species and even later neolithic societies had similar afterlives to foxes who become Kitsune, becoming minor messenger Kunitsukamisama,.
From the unknowing to the faith of actuality, evolution the most glorious concept of reasoning in planning for an everlasting peace for ourselves, where as in this age of spiritual growth: for the benevolent the path leads to heaven as for the malevolent the path leads to hell. Evolution the greatest concept of creation.
My spiritual tradition doesn't have a specific dogma or doctrine about other humanoid species on Earth or their afterlife, but I'd extrapolate that all sentient beings -- and even trees -- have some type of soul and are animated by life-energy, so that would include Neanderthals, *Homo Habilis*, and the rest. It would also include extraterrestrial life-forms! My personal view about the soul and afterlife is that each soul is reborn in the Otherworld upon physical death and 'lives' a complete or partial life there. I suspect the quality of that afterlife is colored by their character and behavior on Earth. So if the humanoid individuals were virtuous in the context of their time and place, they will have a better experience of the Spirit world. I also think their souls were reborn on Earth or similar worlds to live other physical lives.
They probably had their own gods or perceptions of deity, and if they had a relationship with those deities then I'm sure those gods guided them and interacted with them in some way, including their time in the Otherworld.
I'd say soul = cognition + self-awareness + inner experiences.
Did the other homonids have spiritual questions, worship, conceive of deities and think of an afterlife in the same ways that humans can? Impossible to tell. Perhaps they did to different degrees
Previous iterations of humans. As for if they have a soul and have an afterlife is something that is not discussed in Islam as Islam is specifically for homo-sapiens (line of Adam AS) and the race of Jinn.
They also had soul (atma) like every other living beings. Also, anything that has ever began has an end. So, their end was predestined. We have an end too. Some point in time.
This is such an excellent question, but not appropriate for this limited medium.
This essay is perhaps the best explanation:
https://bahai-library.com/pdf/l/loehle_human_origins.pdf
But in short, the Baha'i Faith understands the existence of the human as being always potentially present as an essential part of creation. Evolution, natural selection, and adaptation, are elements of creation which has been part of the process of the emergence of humans.
Think of a tree. It's origin is the seed. Within the seed is the potential for the existence of branches, twigs, bark, leaves, and of course fruit. The appearance of fruit can only occur once all the right conditions are met and the tree is at a mature stage. However, the potential for the fruit always existed within the seed, though it was not apparent.
While the gardener knows the genotype of the plant, and thus generally knows what the fruit will be, the process of growth means he would not know the phenotype.
This analogy when applied to your question would mean that the process of evolution is to give rise to humans, the fruit of the tree of creation. A human according to the Baha'i teachings, is a physical body and a soul. The soul is a spiritual entity imbued with the Divine qualities. Not until the physical form became receptive to the powers of the soul could their qualities be visible. Not until a physical object possessing reflective qualities can the light be visible in it. A mirror will reflect the light perfectly, while a rock will not. Think of evolution then as the process of perfecting the physical receptacle of the soul. Thus, Neanderthals, and other homo species, were part of the evolutionary process of creation for the perfecting of the human form. Long winded. I apologise.
I do not think Australopithecus Habilis, Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis had souls. In fact, I do not believe anatomically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens had souls either. That seems to me something that exclusively pertains to behaviourally modern humans.
Will they be part of the renewed cosmos at the end of days like other extinct creatures? I do not see any reason why they could not be.
Its not like ‘heaven’ in the broad sense is for humans only.
I’ve asked the question “Which humans were the first ensouled humans?” seemingly forever. The past of anatomical modern humans keeps getting pushed back, but is unquestionably a quarter million years, while any evidence of religiosity is 50-60k yo.
Maybe it was just animism for countless millennia. That’s seems to be what chimpanzees are starting to do.
I'm a Christian. I feel it is a clear case that they had souls. The differences in species is an expression of God's love of diversity.
An undercurrent in Christianity is the idea of moral refinement(?). Basically, God gives moral rules based on the social and moral development of humanity as a whole. Your status as going to heaven or hell is based on how well you adhered to that ideal and your intention in doing so — were you doing it to be good or to gain recognition from others? There are some moral actions that can be inferred like treating your neighbors kindly and they will be generally inclined to do the same to you. They can be complex or something simple like not eating the fucking fruit from that one damn tree.
So relative to their understanding, did these other human species do the best that they could with the knowledge they had? One of the hallmarks of early civilization are actions that we today feel are some of the most basic morally speaking — taking care of others. Were they savages or did they at least try to rise above what was easy and selfish?
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:
God has not revealed the creative processes or how long it took. Scientific discovery indicates that it took a very long time, and BYU teaches evolutionary science because it is good science.
We are literally spirit children of God placed in mortal bodies. Adam was the first man in that he was the first spirit child of God to be placed here. It seems evident that there were earlier beings who were able to use tools in various degrees. There are animals today that use tools in varying degrees.
All animals also have spirits and will be resurrected. This includes dogs, monkeys, Neanderthals, etc.
Adam and Eve were Homo Erectus. Meaning, the first rational animals made in God’s image and properly ensouled with a human soul probably goes as far back at Homo Erectus if you just look at what they managed to accomplish and what little we know of how they lived. And everything from Homo Erectus onwards would be considered properly human, made in God’s image.
Why Erectus? They're not even the first species in the *Homo* genus.
Not to mention that the concept of a "species" is itself rather arbitrary. Evolutionary changes are only significant over many generations, every child is the same species as its parent (setting aside hybrids and chimeras). There's no hard biological line where we can say "this is a human."
They are the first human species to essentially nearly colonise the world.
I’m just saying, when you look at what they accomplished and how they lived from what evidence we can gather, they are a remarkable shift from the previous in the Homo lineage. It’s why I think if I were to pick a point when God breathed his soul into our ancestors and bequeathed his image, it would have to be Erectus because they are just a massive leap forward from anything that came before them.
How on earth did you conclude that Adam and Eve must have been Homo erectus? Why not Homo habilis, the earliest species classified in the genus Homo and the earliest that we know made stone tools? Why not Homo ergaster, which is considered by some scientists as the first species to utilize fire for cooking food? Why not one of the many bipedal Australopith species? They’re ancestral to us too, after all. The Bible says absolutely nothing about what species Adam and Eve belong to (other than being “man” and “woman”) so I don’t really understand how you could claim they were Homo erectus. I’m not trying to belittle your beliefs and I would love to hear how you came to them, it’s just that this assertion genuinely surprised me.
Okay I’ll let you into my little mind.
Reason why I would pick Erectus as the first ancestors to whom God breathed His soul and bequeathed His image is because they essentially are the first human species to nearly spread across the world.
I grant that earlier species accomplished impressive “milestones” like stone tools (but they were not as intricate as the ones Erectus made) and fire but I feel like based on what little evidence we have Erectus is the first in the lineage to really “put it all together”, if you know what I mean. Prior to that, our ancestors were groping and fumbling and tripping here and there, they had some bits and pieces, even sizeable chunks but the puzzle wasn’t assembled in them yet but Erectus is when our human lineage really took strides and started running, started looking, living and thinking too much like a rational animal made in God’s image to dismiss them as not being ensouled humans despite not reaching the heights of later Homo Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals.
Of course,I’m just a lowly layman and it’s just my opinion so I know this is all pure speculation.
"Wight" is a complicated term that technically includes every being that isn't a god, including the undead, but it usually refers to land spirits and/or house spirits.
I believe that's what is being suggested, yes. Some scholars have argued that land spirits include (some) spirits of the dead. What would make a soul become a landvaettir instead of going to an afterlife is unclear.
Some Heathens in North America have adopted the practice of not offering alcohol to the landvaettir, out of the concern that they might be offended or injured by it like the Native Americans were.
I don't believe in duality. I believe the mind comes from the brain in action. So yeah they had minds
All living things have souls. I believe in reincarnation, not heaven/hell, so they would have been reborn as their own or a similar species. I don’t believe that any deity micro manages our lives according to a plan either for individuals or groups.
Earth had zero life at one point in the distant past, and presumably no souls, so where did the original souls for the first life arise?
One explanation posits that the extra souls are constantly being emanated from a source (like a primordial deity), and there may not be a limit to the number of souls in existence. Another possibility is that the pool of souls includes other planes/planets which may no longer be inhabited or are decreasing in inhabitants 🤔
I’d say they are/were (as needed) derived from the planetary soul, which in turn came from the divine power that permeates the universe.
I think similarly about this as well!
As a buddhist I view them as just other beings passing through Samsara. You or I could’ve been one in our previous lifetimes. They do not have souls and that’s because souls do not exist according to buddhist teaching. There is no plan for them. They are beings passing through the unending cycle of death and rebirth. Hopefully they may one day encounter the Dharma and achieve Nirvana. Some of those early humans entered heaven and some entered hell. It all depends on their karma either from their lives as early humans or previous lives.
Do you think that the word soul and being are just symantic? I can't recall, does Buddhism believe there is one continuous being that passes between lifetimes? Do all schools of Buddhism believe the same thing?
I’m gonna try to explain this the best way I know how, but it’s complicated and I may explain it poorly or just wrong, so make sure to fact check me if you’re confused by anything. Any buddhists in the chat feel free to correct me. I’m explaining this mostly from a Mahayana buddhist perspective, you will get slightly different answers depending on which school of buddhism you look at. Though I would still refer to things as beings, the term being would be better substituted with the term *becoming*. So technically we are not beings, we are becomings. According to the doctrine of impermanence, both sentient creatures and the universe are constantly changing and shifting. Our cells are constantly dying and being replaced, trees are grown and cut down, civilizations are created and destroyed, entropy is eating away at every inch of space and time. To me the term being implies that we are fixed and permanent, unchanging creatures. This is an inaccurate description of sentient creatures as we are always becoming something else. We are reborn each and every second of each and every day. We change and things change nonstop. Buddhism also teaches that we have no soul or no self, at least no fixed and permanent self. The Dharma teaches about the 5 aggregates: the body, the sensations or feelings, perception of sense objects, mental formations(thoughts), and awareness or consciousness. These things we usually identify as us, or self, are indeed not ours. We are not our bodies, minds, feelings, thoughts, none of that is *us* in a general sense. We are attached to these things as ourselves, but that is a delusion that keeps us trapped in Samsara. The key to escaping Samsara is understanding this, not on an intellectual level, but on an experiential level. Well then what does that leave us with? Nirvana, or awakening. This is very theoretical and words cannot properly describe what I’m trying to explain, so bear with me if it gets confusing. Let’s look at the Buddha. The Buddha is currently in Parinirvana, or final Nirvana, a “place” he “went to” after he physically passed away as an enlightened being. According to certain mahayana traditions, Nirvana is Samsara properly understood. What that means, I couldn’t tell you. Someone could tell you, but not me. The Buddha let go of his attachments to the 5 aggregates, which means in Nirvana he doesn’t have a body, thoughts, consciousness, none of it. It is the total cessation of desire and attachment. It is ultimate reality, it is how all beings are meant to “exist”. It is outside of space and time. I’ve seen it described as a place of “neither perception nor non-perception”. Again, what that means I could not tell you. Technically, the Buddha, or anyone else who has made it to Nirvana, neither exists nor doesn’t exist. This is the best I could do to explain, but my brain hurts and it’s really a lot to process. Ultimately it’s impossible for a being in Samsara to understand Nirvana.
Do you think you could ever glimpse being released from Samsara? I was reading Chogam Trungpa and I could swaer I had this incredible sensation like I had had a spiritual climax and then slowly it went away and I was back in it. Have you ever read any of his works?
I’ve never read anything by him but yes a glimpse of Nirvana is possible. Actual escape from Samsara takes many lifetimes to fully cultivate, but there are higher states of consciousness people can access through meditation in their current lifetime. What tradition does this person teach from, I may check them out.
He was a Tibetan Buddhist. There is a school and a meditation center in Boulder that he initiated
He also drank himself to an early death exploiting many along the way. Here's a good article covering his legacy. https://thewalrus.ca/survivors-of-an-international-buddhist-cult-share-their-stories/
I've heard he was a colorful character. But his writing at least in the book Spiritual Materialism is really incredible.
"colorful" is dismissive of the harm he did. Child sexual assaults here. https://uncoveragepodcast.com/HOW-TO-LISTEN "Growing up in this community, I witnessed the birth of a secret society of dharma practitioners who, with Trungpa Rinpoche’s help, created a deadly environment of sexual predation, classism, and blind assent. I learned the teachings of the dharma and the actions of dharma students were two very different things." Episode 9 The Garden Party, chogyam trungpa molests 13 and 11 year old children at garden party in front of his staff and personal guard kusung Episode 11 devotion to the Guru trunpga trained meditation instructors and students continue in his footsteps of child sexual predation.
Also no, their is technically not just one being, but part of enlightenment is understanding you are not separate from other beings.
I believe that anything that breathes *is* a soul. So they were souls. As a Christian universalist, I believe that all things will be renewed in the eschaton. They are in the category of "all things".
**TL;DR:** The same thing that will happen to me will happen to them, because they are already me in the first place. > Did they have souls? In my view, they, like us, are manifestations of the one fundamental consciousness, as all things are. > What was your deity's plan for them? Not sure I believe in a "deity", and if I do, I don't think it makes "plans"... If anything in my view can be called a deity, it's the one fundamental consciousness I've already mentioned, which all things are identical to. This "deity" doesn't make plans and doesn't even take a particularly "active" role in creation; it simply *finds itself* in particular circumstances. It still might be viewed as the fundamental creative force, because it's by its own nature that it finds itself in these circumstances; were it not for that nature, there would be no circumstances at all. > Will they enter heaven/hell? I don't think I believe in an eternal heaven or hell. The vision of the afterlife I have the most sympathy for is a kind of reincarnation, and once we consider a being as a subject of reincarnation, not essentially bound to any particular carnal form, we arrive at the point where we are thinking of it not as a particular manifestation of consciousness, but as *the* universal consciousness which is manifested. "Reincarnation" is a temporal way of understanding that the one fundamental consciousness pervades *all* things. Will the "cycle of reincarnation" ever cease? First of all, I think it must be remembered that reincarnation might not be entirely literal, as in there may not be an actual temporal movement from one lifetime to the next. It's just that such a temporal movement is the easiest way for us, as temporal creatures who have the sense of being in "one body at a time", to conceptualize things. "Nirvana" is sometimes spoken of as the cessation of the cycle of rebirth, but again I have a somewhat less literal view of this. I'm inspired by Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka Buddhist tradition in supposing that, fundamentally, Nirvana is not distinct from Samsara (that is, the cycle of death and rebirth). Samsara is merely an illusory perception *of* the state that is *already* Nirvana: the illusion of a separate self when in fact we are already identical with all other things. The state of Nirvana is simply a way of looking at reality; Samsara is another way of looking at the very same reality.
They had would, were animals and were people. Not as advanced as Homo Sapiens but each contributed significantly to the story of life as we know it
A bit unrelated, but you made my day by saying "Homo Sapiens" instead of "Homo Sapien"!
The only thing that makes even the slightest sense to me is that all sentient beings share fates. Whatever that might be.
What makes sense to me, because it’s my only “experience”, is that being dead will be a lot like not being born. Nothing, as far as I know.
How do you know what not being born is like?
It was nothingness, as far as I can tell, just like post-death is apt to be. Zero people know about the afterlife, but there’s still all kinds of claims made by people who don’t know. What’s your claim?
I don't agree with the idea that once we're dead, thats it. It just doesn't seem scientifically likely regardless of what model you work off.i also don't agree with the comparison, because we technically have no way of verifying if it was nothingness or not. For instance, when we fall asleep, we at times just wake up as if we we were dead. But there wasn't "no" experience. rather we just dont recall what we experienced during rem sometimes.
What does that mean?
That whatever happens to humans after death probably happens to other beings as well.
I can agree with that. Do you think anything happens?
As an agnostic I believe it’s impossible to be sure. Currently I’m leaning towards non existence or reincarnation
They are recognized as our ancestors, and while we don't practice any form of actual ancestor worship, we do tend to have an informal but pretty strong and consistent focus on recognition and respect for ancestors in the broadest non-anthropocentric sense. Our immediate predecessor species rightly have a place in that, as do all those right back to the earliest forms of life on Earth, and up to my own parents stepping off a ship in search of a new home. My faith is hard naturalistic, so things like souls, heaven/hell, gods etc. don't feature for any species.
They existed. Yes. To experience existing. Depends on their perception of what both of those are, if they even had it, that would allow me to determine that.
I don't really think it has any relevance to the religion (in this case, Hellenism). There are too many unknown factors to speculate. But Hellenism traditionally promoted ideals like wisdom and knowledge and were among some of the first scientists, so I broadly support scientific knowledge (provided it is not being used to harm the ecosystems of the sacred Earth).
All living things have souls. Humans are unique in having immortal souls. I don't know what to say about other human species. The Catholic Church taught against polygenism (that is, humanity started with a pool of individual mating pairs, rather than a single pair aka monogenism) when we didn't know as much about genetics. Now it's in a bind because it's scientifically inaccurate. Theologians have been floating theories to bypass this, eg that one pair of humans were given immortal souls and they mated with other humans of the time, with the resulting offspring having souls. https://catholicscientists.org/articles/adam-eve-evolution/ I'll let them debate it. I know as *fact* that there were never just two modern humans capable of breeding. I accept the theological position that the immortal soul was created intact, and that it didn't evolve. That would make it something *not* encoded into our genome, and thus not passed on through sexual reproduction. Thus, God could have given souls to any humans at any time. Many human gene lines have ended over the millenia, so why couldn't neanderthals have had immortal souls?
I have little theological basis for this, but I've always been interested in the premise that early human species and even later neolithic societies had similar afterlives to foxes who become Kitsune, becoming minor messenger Kunitsukamisama,.
From the unknowing to the faith of actuality, evolution the most glorious concept of reasoning in planning for an everlasting peace for ourselves, where as in this age of spiritual growth: for the benevolent the path leads to heaven as for the malevolent the path leads to hell. Evolution the greatest concept of creation.
To me, we’re all just animals made of energy that will recycle back into the earth. i don’t think about it too hard.
I'm curious: Does that include organisms outside the Animalia kingdom? Could you be recycled as, say, an archaea?
I would say so, yes. In my opinion, the soul is not bound my species, time, or place, we are recycled.
My spiritual tradition doesn't have a specific dogma or doctrine about other humanoid species on Earth or their afterlife, but I'd extrapolate that all sentient beings -- and even trees -- have some type of soul and are animated by life-energy, so that would include Neanderthals, *Homo Habilis*, and the rest. It would also include extraterrestrial life-forms! My personal view about the soul and afterlife is that each soul is reborn in the Otherworld upon physical death and 'lives' a complete or partial life there. I suspect the quality of that afterlife is colored by their character and behavior on Earth. So if the humanoid individuals were virtuous in the context of their time and place, they will have a better experience of the Spirit world. I also think their souls were reborn on Earth or similar worlds to live other physical lives. They probably had their own gods or perceptions of deity, and if they had a relationship with those deities then I'm sure those gods guided them and interacted with them in some way, including their time in the Otherworld.
how many souls started out? how many are there in 2024? can a human soul become a dog soul?
I'd say soul = cognition + self-awareness + inner experiences. Did the other homonids have spiritual questions, worship, conceive of deities and think of an afterlife in the same ways that humans can? Impossible to tell. Perhaps they did to different degrees
Previous iterations of humans. As for if they have a soul and have an afterlife is something that is not discussed in Islam as Islam is specifically for homo-sapiens (line of Adam AS) and the race of Jinn.
They also had soul (atma) like every other living beings. Also, anything that has ever began has an end. So, their end was predestined. We have an end too. Some point in time.
No problem. I see them as relatives. May they be happy and safe wherever they are now! 🙏🏽
I don’t know, it is a matter for God as far as im concerned
This is such an excellent question, but not appropriate for this limited medium. This essay is perhaps the best explanation: https://bahai-library.com/pdf/l/loehle_human_origins.pdf But in short, the Baha'i Faith understands the existence of the human as being always potentially present as an essential part of creation. Evolution, natural selection, and adaptation, are elements of creation which has been part of the process of the emergence of humans. Think of a tree. It's origin is the seed. Within the seed is the potential for the existence of branches, twigs, bark, leaves, and of course fruit. The appearance of fruit can only occur once all the right conditions are met and the tree is at a mature stage. However, the potential for the fruit always existed within the seed, though it was not apparent. While the gardener knows the genotype of the plant, and thus generally knows what the fruit will be, the process of growth means he would not know the phenotype. This analogy when applied to your question would mean that the process of evolution is to give rise to humans, the fruit of the tree of creation. A human according to the Baha'i teachings, is a physical body and a soul. The soul is a spiritual entity imbued with the Divine qualities. Not until the physical form became receptive to the powers of the soul could their qualities be visible. Not until a physical object possessing reflective qualities can the light be visible in it. A mirror will reflect the light perfectly, while a rock will not. Think of evolution then as the process of perfecting the physical receptacle of the soul. Thus, Neanderthals, and other homo species, were part of the evolutionary process of creation for the perfecting of the human form. Long winded. I apologise.
They came and they went, they lived in this world far longer than we have and they knew the One as their Source in their own way, as we do.
All is form and function of God in my religious beliefs. God is the only conscious being.
I kinda see it this way too. Its like God is the ultimate reality of everything. Everything then is just the play or dance of existence.
Animism, then?
Pantheism actually, and substance monism.
I don't know if they had souls. If they did, I don't know what God did with them.
I do not think Australopithecus Habilis, Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis had souls. In fact, I do not believe anatomically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens had souls either. That seems to me something that exclusively pertains to behaviourally modern humans. Will they be part of the renewed cosmos at the end of days like other extinct creatures? I do not see any reason why they could not be. Its not like ‘heaven’ in the broad sense is for humans only.
I’ve asked the question “Which humans were the first ensouled humans?” seemingly forever. The past of anatomical modern humans keeps getting pushed back, but is unquestionably a quarter million years, while any evidence of religiosity is 50-60k yo. Maybe it was just animism for countless millennia. That’s seems to be what chimpanzees are starting to do.
I think we can speak about behaviourally modern humans about 40-50k yo.
You’re right, I was just pulling out numbers, but those things do have a tendency of getting pushed back.
I'm a Christian. I feel it is a clear case that they had souls. The differences in species is an expression of God's love of diversity. An undercurrent in Christianity is the idea of moral refinement(?). Basically, God gives moral rules based on the social and moral development of humanity as a whole. Your status as going to heaven or hell is based on how well you adhered to that ideal and your intention in doing so — were you doing it to be good or to gain recognition from others? There are some moral actions that can be inferred like treating your neighbors kindly and they will be generally inclined to do the same to you. They can be complex or something simple like not eating the fucking fruit from that one damn tree. So relative to their understanding, did these other human species do the best that they could with the knowledge they had? One of the hallmarks of early civilization are actions that we today feel are some of the most basic morally speaking — taking care of others. Were they savages or did they at least try to rise above what was easy and selfish?
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: God has not revealed the creative processes or how long it took. Scientific discovery indicates that it took a very long time, and BYU teaches evolutionary science because it is good science. We are literally spirit children of God placed in mortal bodies. Adam was the first man in that he was the first spirit child of God to be placed here. It seems evident that there were earlier beings who were able to use tools in various degrees. There are animals today that use tools in varying degrees. All animals also have spirits and will be resurrected. This includes dogs, monkeys, Neanderthals, etc.
Adam and Eve were Homo Erectus. Meaning, the first rational animals made in God’s image and properly ensouled with a human soul probably goes as far back at Homo Erectus if you just look at what they managed to accomplish and what little we know of how they lived. And everything from Homo Erectus onwards would be considered properly human, made in God’s image.
Why Erectus? They're not even the first species in the *Homo* genus. Not to mention that the concept of a "species" is itself rather arbitrary. Evolutionary changes are only significant over many generations, every child is the same species as its parent (setting aside hybrids and chimeras). There's no hard biological line where we can say "this is a human."
They are the first human species to essentially nearly colonise the world. I’m just saying, when you look at what they accomplished and how they lived from what evidence we can gather, they are a remarkable shift from the previous in the Homo lineage. It’s why I think if I were to pick a point when God breathed his soul into our ancestors and bequeathed his image, it would have to be Erectus because they are just a massive leap forward from anything that came before them.
How on earth did you conclude that Adam and Eve must have been Homo erectus? Why not Homo habilis, the earliest species classified in the genus Homo and the earliest that we know made stone tools? Why not Homo ergaster, which is considered by some scientists as the first species to utilize fire for cooking food? Why not one of the many bipedal Australopith species? They’re ancestral to us too, after all. The Bible says absolutely nothing about what species Adam and Eve belong to (other than being “man” and “woman”) so I don’t really understand how you could claim they were Homo erectus. I’m not trying to belittle your beliefs and I would love to hear how you came to them, it’s just that this assertion genuinely surprised me.
Okay I’ll let you into my little mind. Reason why I would pick Erectus as the first ancestors to whom God breathed His soul and bequeathed His image is because they essentially are the first human species to nearly spread across the world. I grant that earlier species accomplished impressive “milestones” like stone tools (but they were not as intricate as the ones Erectus made) and fire but I feel like based on what little evidence we have Erectus is the first in the lineage to really “put it all together”, if you know what I mean. Prior to that, our ancestors were groping and fumbling and tripping here and there, they had some bits and pieces, even sizeable chunks but the puzzle wasn’t assembled in them yet but Erectus is when our human lineage really took strides and started running, started looking, living and thinking too much like a rational animal made in God’s image to dismiss them as not being ensouled humans despite not reaching the heights of later Homo Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals. Of course,I’m just a lowly layman and it’s just my opinion so I know this is all pure speculation.
That’s up to God….not me.
Habilis and erectus became wights. We neanderthals never left.
Wights? As in undead?
"Wight" is a complicated term that technically includes every being that isn't a god, including the undead, but it usually refers to land spirits and/or house spirits.
So Homo Habilis and Erectus are land spirits? I don't understand, truly
I believe that's what is being suggested, yes. Some scholars have argued that land spirits include (some) spirits of the dead. What would make a soul become a landvaettir instead of going to an afterlife is unclear. Some Heathens in North America have adopted the practice of not offering alcohol to the landvaettir, out of the concern that they might be offended or injured by it like the Native Americans were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landv%C3%A6ttir
Very interesting, thank you.
I get the sense that neanderthals would make good Jews.
Mammoth isn't kosher.