Thread: The Spirit

Sprit is not beyond perception, it's beyond our current paradigm's model of existence. The concept has not yet been integrated into our collective perspective.

Spirit is not anything extra, just a new implication on an old reality. It's not an explanation, it's a combination of two viewpoints, a word necessary until a middle ground is created. For me, it implies the opposite of duality, it implies imagination is not something abstract and separate from reality as most scientists currently assume. It implies that the world takes on the personality we imagine and expect it to; that our imagination is mobile

As it has been said before, any definition of the spirit is inevitably incomplete because it is a 'mystery' that cannot be explained once and for all, but must be experienced, deciphered, by each one of us. We all have the tools - we just don't have the instruction manual. Fortunately for us, there are many who have penetrated its boundaries and have written extensively on how to access its world directly and what its world consists of. Those with an interest will seek and find, and for those who ignore its presence, its doors will remain closed; we must empty ourselves before the spirit will become perceptible.

Because the spirit cannot be communicated directly within our current consciousness and language, as the physical world can be, we must use symbols - the ciphers of the 'mystery' - to decode its meaning. We perceive the spiritual not with our physical senses, but with the soul. It is the soul which is able to 'translate' the spiritual into Imaginal forms. Now what is this forgotten realm of human experience - the soul? If we made correspondences to the human being, we could say:

spirit = intelligence, soul = imagination, body = senses

The soul is the 'place' where we experience, or rather that all 'place' is within it and itself is 'nowhere' (Na-koja-abad). It can have either a passive or active role. We are usually accustomed to the passive role of the Imagination; it acts as a mirror to reflect images based on data from our sense perceptions. This is not the only function of the soul, however, as it can also actively create Images to cloak Ideas from the spiritual world of pure Intelligences. Most people do not experience this because in order to do so one must completely empty themselves of all attachments to the physical world (desires, emotions, thoughts, etc.), and this is very hard to do if one does not have the will strong enough to take on a praxis of meditation and contemplation. It is by emptying a space within our soul - building a temple within - that we may begin to con-template the spirit. Without this, it will remain a complete mystery.

Originally Posted by syzygy

As it has been said before, any definition of the spirit is inevitably incomplete because it is a 'mystery' that cannot be explained once and for all, but must be experienced, deciphered, by each one of us.

Same goes for Jesus, Krishna, Thor, Fairies, Captain Howdy, and imaginary friends.

I recognize the complexity of the spirit. However, I see no reason to dedicate a part of my life to something that can offer nothing besides my subjective idea of what it is. It appeals more of a gap filler to the unknown than anything else and I find much more interest and learning potential in not filling gaps.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Same goes for Jesus, Krishna, Thor, Fairies, Captain Howdy, and imaginary friends.

Your implication horribly arrogant. Do you know how much history and spiritual background you ignore, for the sake of your own opinion? You refuse to acknowledge the vast volume of spiritual validity, yet you wonder why you don't understand it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I recognize the complexity of the spirit. However, I see no reason to dedicate a part of my life to something that can offer nothing besides my subjective idea of what it is. It appeals more of a gap filler to the unknown than anything else and I find much more interest and learning potential in not filling gaps.

A "gap filler" is merely a perception, and it is actually a projection of your ego. Much like the "Same goes for Jesus, Krishna..." statement you made, is a gap-filler for your vulnerable position. Unfortunately you have projected this onto the world's most renowned and powerful teachers, and then believed it. Interestingly, you recognize your same mistake in others, saying:

Of course, you have no reason or justification for this; this is just conjecture.

I think you should re-consider this, too:

Originally Posted by syzygy

Those with an interest will seek and find, and for those who ignore its presence, its doors will remain closed; we must empty ourselves before the spirit will become perceptible.

If you are not truly interested in Spiritual topics, you should cease creating them.

That is my advice. I can see how your criticism is circular and may not help you without your willingness to understand. You may dwell in it for pages and pages and end up in the same place you started.

Originally Posted by really

Your implication horribly arrogant. Do you know how much history and spiritual background you ignore, for the sake of your own opinion? You refuse to acknowledge the vast volume of spiritual validity, yet you wonder why you don't understand it.

Yes, and there's lots of history on Santa Claus - does that make him true? Of course not. The point is that the "spirit" is a subjective path that you can never objectively teach to another person. You can only guide someone to it by the same means you tell someone who Santa Claus is.

A "gap filler" is merely a perception, and it is actually a projection of your ego. Much like the "Same goes for Jesus, Krishna..." statement you made, is a gap-filler for your vulnerable position. Unfortunately you have projected this onto the world's most renowned and powerful teachers, and then believed it. Interestingly, you recognize your same mistake in others, saying:

It is my opinion that there is no proof that spirit exists? Is it really "just my opinion" that all these prophets were divine? If there were proof of any sort, we would all be worshiping Baha'i or have a radically different world. It is a subjective matter and, because of that, it resides in the same place as imagination.

If you are not truly interested in Spiritual topics, you should cease creating them.

I am interested in them.

I want proof of the spirit! However, there does not seem to be a real definition of it. It is just a vague concept that is completely subjective. I could say the same thing about my idea of the static realm. You probably won't understand like I do, but make no mistake that I do think beyond materialistic means - there is even proof of that.

As a side note, I do intensely practice aikido and yoga meditation. Do you really think I'm completely resilient to spirituality? Or, are you more inclined to call me a poser? I think it is you that is getting upset now.

That is my advice. I can see how it your criticism is circular and may not help you without your willingness to understand. You may dwell in it for pages and pages and end up in the same place you started.

I think you made a typo because I'm not sure what you mean by "it your criticism is circular"?

Let's reconcile, hm?

Can the spirit be objectively defined?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, and there's lots of history on Santa Claus - does that make him true?

In what context is the question? True, under what circumstances? You'd be surprised how closely related this is with your problem.

Spiritual foundation of "Santa Clause".

If you mean "Santa doesn't really visit or go down the chimney", are you becoming lost in the details? Is this beside the point of what Santa is about? You appear to be distracted from his essential meaning.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point is that the "spirit" is a subjective path that you can never objectively teach to another person.

Yes, that is the point. But it actually doesn't make Spirit or Spirituality unbelievable or as unreasonable as any of your naive claims. You can use it as a source of endless questions and skeptical distractions, as you already are. That's your choice, though.

First of all, "objective teaching" doesn't lead one to spiritual enlightenment, it may actually become more of a confusing and disturbing obstacle for most people. Especially considering the mind is fallacious in recognizing truth. When teachers say "Look within", they do not mean look inside your body or roll your eyes back inside your head.

Secondly, to argue this is to become lost in the irrelevant details. The Spirit of one's existence is not comparable to Santa Clause. One's Spiritual existence is not provable or definable; it is non-linear. If it could be written, the Truth could definably be written too.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is my opinion that there is no proof that spirit exists?

No, I think it is your opinion that, only that which is provable can be understood or considered real.

Besides, "I", is the Spirit of one's existence. Is "I" very hard to intuit, or does one have to define it and prove it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is a subjective matter and, because of that, it resides in the same place as imagination.

Well, I guess Reality itself must then reside in the place of the imagination. "After all, Reality can be reduced to Subjectivity. My opinion and and my meaning is only true, because all Reality is connected to my imagination!" This Relativism is quite ignorant and thick-headed.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I want proof of the spirit!

Right, you do not need it though. Good luck discovering proof, nevertheless.

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, there does not seem to be a real definition of it. It is just a vague concept that is completely subjective.

That is because it is essentially the core of all subjectivity! And so is Reality!

Originally Posted by O'nus

I could say the same thing about my idea of the static realm. You probably won't understand like I do, but make no mistake that I do think beyond materialistic means - there is even proof of that.

Please don't mention "the static realm", unless you have something worthwhile to say about it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

As a side note, I do intensely practice aikido and yoga meditation. Do you really think I'm completely resilient to spirituality? Or, are you more inclined to call me a poser?

What's the matter here? O'nus, what have you studied of spirituality? Have you studied any teachers or paths in depth (yoga/akido don't count)?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you made a typo because I'm not sure what you mean by "it your criticism is circular"?

Yes, that was a typo (edited). Nevermind, I doubt you misunderstood it anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let's reconcile, hm?

Can the spirit be objectively defined?

~

I don't believe so. It is beyond the paradigm of objectivity and definables, according to my research. It is a subject matter. Look for it out there, and you're going to have all kinds of doubts and false-beliefs.

I will have to repeat myself, having answered similar questions already. I use the word Spirit as I do "essence". The spiritual is merely the essential. The essential is difficult to define, because it is a generality.

One's spirit (spirit of existence), or essence of existence, cannot be distinguished from anything except in the alluding qualities that it is formless, non-dualistic and non-linear. Thus, it is not subject to objective definitions or distinguishability, for they are but linear and dualistic. If one's Spirit is united as one with all that exists, how can it be separated for examination?

Originally Posted by really

In what context is the question? True, under what circumstances? You'd be surprised how closely related this is with your problem.

If you mean "Santa doesn't really visit or go down the chimney", are you becoming lost in the details? Is this beside the point of what Santa is about? You appear to be distracted from his essential meaning.

Here.. I am pretty sure I get your stance, I am just struggling to understand what the spirit means to you and we both know you cannot tell me this. We both know this, I'm not really arguing anything anymore, so let's move on.

Yes, that is the point. But it actually doesn't make Spirit or Spirituality unbelievable or as unreasonable as any of your naive claims. You can use it as a source of endless questions and skeptical distractions, as you already are. That's your choice, though.

I won't, I'm done with it - I have gathered what I was looking for.

First of all, "objective teaching" doesn't lead one to spiritual enlightenment, it may actually become more of a confusing and disturbing obstacle for most people. Especially considering the mind is fallacious in recognizing truth. When teachers say "Look within", they do not mean look inside your body or roll your eyes back inside your head.

Of course not, you can't seriously think I meant that.

Secondly, to argue this is to become lost in the irrelevant details. The Spirit of one's existence is not comparable to Santa Clause. One's Spiritual existence is not provable or definable; it is non-linear. If it could be written, the Truth could definably be written too.

Again, my only point here is that you cannot really pontificate subjective matters. I think we both understand this, you are just more passionate about trying to galvanize those that are already inclined to do so. I have no quarrel with that. Don't fret.

No, I think it is your opinion that, only that which is provable can be understood or considered real.

I did not say that and nor will I ever. This is the prejudice people keep making with me. Do you want to call me left-brained as well? How about hard-nosed-cold-scientist? Those have not been used yet, they are a bit of a change.

Besides, "I", is the Spirit of one's existence. Is "I" very hard to intuit, or does one have to define it and prove it?

We have already. The single action of "I" is the definition and proof. Don't you agree?

Please don't mention "the static realm", unless you have something worthwhile to say about it.

Static realm; the realm that existed before the kinetic realm. Given that time was created, there was a time before it that existed without tangibility and physicality - stasis. This is the static realm. It is, of course, always existing because it does not function on the same level of existence nor proof as we do. It is the energy within us and all things. It functions based on rules we cannot yet grasp because they are within laws that only quantum physics comes close to grasping (and admits this too). To find out more, google "z particle".

This is what I feel is similar to "the Truth".

What's the matter here? O'nus, what have you studied of spirituality? Have you studied any teachers or paths in depth (yoga/akido don't count)?

Right, of course I could mention that I studied under Yogi Bahsatya, but it won't matter because it is not the teacher you had so nothing I study is as good as what you study. Right?

I have read many tomes, books, and studied under many people. I won't be pretentious enough to say yours were wrong or say that my teachers are "better" or "count more" than yours.

That is arrogance.

I don't believe so. It is beyond the paradigm of objectivity and definables, according to my research. It is a subject matter. Look for it out there, and you're going to have all kinds of doubts and false-beliefs.

I will have to repeat myself, having answered similar questions already. I use the word Spirit as I do "essence". The spiritual is merely the essential. The essential is difficult to define, because it is a generality.

One's spirit (spirit of existence), or essence of existence, cannot be distinguished from anything except in the alluding qualities that it is formless, non-dualistic and non-linear. Thus, it is not subject to objective definitions or distinguishability, for they are but linear and dualistic. If one's Spirit is united as one with all that exists, how can it be separated for examination?

P1) Speaking utilizes objective language
P2) Spirit cannot be understood through objective means
C) You cannot speak of the spirit

We both agree - why do you continue to argue?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I recognize the complexity of the spirit. However, I see no reason to dedicate a part of my life to something that can offer nothing besides my subjective idea of what it is. It appeals more of a gap filler to the unknown than anything else and I find much more interest and learning potential in not filling gaps.

The spirit has nothing to do with what we subjectively project onto it - that is where the problems that so many have with religion come from. In fact, it is only when we empty ourselves of our subjective ideas of what the spirit is that it can actually present itself to us. It is not about dedicating a part of our life to it - it is about dedicating our whole life to it - each moment - since without it, we would be nothing. Our mind so easily tricks itself into believing it is independent from it, and then by holding it accountable to physical evidence we assume it does not exist - what can free us from this cruel cycle? Perhaps one of Thor's lightning bolts will do the trick!

Originally Posted by syzygy

The spirit has nothing to do with what we subjectively project onto it - that is where the problems that so many have with religion come from. In fact, it is only when we empty ourselves of our subjective ideas of what the spirit is that it can actually present itself to us. It is not about dedicating a part of our life to it - it is about dedicating our whole life to it - each moment - since without it, we would be nothing. Our mind so easily tricks itself into believing it is independent from it, and then by holding it accountable to physical evidence we assume it does not exist - what can free us from this cruel cycle? Perhaps one of Thor's lightning bolts will do the trick!

*Sigh*

Well.. thank you for contributing.. unfortunately, as I have said before, it is obviously only something that is subjectively realized, so we cannot really discuss it. I'm urging to leave it there.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I did not say that and nor will I ever. This is the prejudice people keep making with me. Do you want to call me left-brained as well? How about hard-nosed-cold-scientist? Those have not been used yet, they are a bit of a change.

Ok, then how would you re-word my impression? What do you consider to be actually Real? And what about the static realm?

Originally Posted by O'nus

We have already. The single action of "I" is the definition and proof. Don't you agree?

Yes, though you don't seem to follow.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Static realm; the realm that existed before the kinetic realm. Given that time was created, there was a time before it that existed without tangibility and physicality - stasis. This is the static realm. It is, of course, always existing because it does not function on the same level of existence nor proof as we do. It is the energy within us and all things. It functions based on rules we cannot yet grasp because they are within laws that only quantum physics comes close to grasping (and admits this too). To find out more, google "z particle".

This is what I feel is similar to "the Truth".

Interesting. That is what I call "potentiality". Can you distinguish or further define it from energy or mind?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, of course I could mention that I studied under Yogi Bahsatya, but it won't matter because it is not the teacher you had so nothing I study is as good as what you study. Right?

LOL

You misunderstood me. Unless, Yogi Bahsatya teaches a spiritual path to God or Enlightenment; Self-Realization (etc.)?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have read many tomes, books, and studied under many people. I won't be pretentious enough to say yours were wrong or say that my teachers are "better" or "count more" than yours.

You studied what?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I said "yoga/aikido" do not count, because they are to do with meditation/relaxation and self-defense. Hence, they are likely not about the realization of Spirit. It doesn't make them wrong, but inapplicable. Sorry if I sounded arrogant.

Originally Posted by O'nus

P1) Speaking utilizes objective language
P2) Spirit cannot be understood through objective means
C) You cannot speak of the spirit

We both agree - why do you continue to argue?

~

Because you appear troubled and distracted by this. I understand the above, but I do not exaggerate it or hold that the Spirit cannot be understood.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, then how would you re-word my impression? What do you consider to be actually Real? And what about the static realm?

For the sake of pragmatism, what can be objectively demonstrated.

Interesting. That is what I call "potentiality". Can you distinguish or further define it from energy or mind?

The z-particle is within everything but what differs is that... err, let's just say it functions as kinetic energy as that is basically what it is. Does that distinguish it? It is energy and everything contains this, so it is not necessary the mind, but it is not anything physical.

I'm struggling here because I honestly don't know too much about it to really give a quick and dirty synopsis. I could read it more... but does this suffice..?

LOL

You realize I made that name up, right?

You misunderstood me. Unless, Yogi Bahsatya teaches a spiritual path to God or Enlightenment; Self-Realization (etc.)?

I guess you don't realize...

You studied what?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I said "yoga/aikido" do not count, because they are to do with meditation/relaxation and self-defense. Hence, they are likely not about the realization of Spirit. It doesn't make them wrong, but inapplicable. Sorry if I sounded arrogant.

Aikido has "spirit" right in its name. The fact that you just attribute it as self-defense shows that you either had a very bad teacher tell you about it or you don't know it. It is intended as the spiritual path of interaction with others. The self-defense is a symbol of the pursuit to harmony as it utilizes the others aggression to bring them to their own demise/resolve.

The point I was making was that I have studied with spiritualists. I can give you names, but will that mean anything? Okay.. Horst. I don't know his last name, so this will be very hard to really give validity to his teachings.. I can't really preach anything about him because there's no reason for you to believe anything I say of him.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

For the sake of pragmatism, what can be objectively demonstrated.

Eh?

Originally Posted by O'nus

The z-particle is within everything but what differs is that... err, let's just say it functions as kinetic energy as that is basically what it is. Does that distinguish it? It is energy and everything contains this, so it is not necessary the mind, but it is not anything physical.

I'm struggling here because I honestly don't know too much about it to really give a quick and dirty synopsis. I could read it more... but does this suffice..?

I understand what you mean, it is a funny connection! But I'm not going to say "Oh it's so vague and unreal".

Originally Posted by O'nus

You realize I made that name up, right?


I guess you don't realize...

Yeah. Thanks for that... And your point?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Aikido has "spirit" right in its name. The fact that you just attribute it as self-defense shows that you either had a very bad teacher tell you about it or you don't know it. It is intended as the spiritual path of interaction with others. The self-defense is a symbol of the pursuit to harmony as it utilizes the others aggression to bring them to their own demise/resolve.

I guess the short answer is "no", then.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point I was making was that I have studied with spiritualists. I can give you names, but will that mean anything? Okay.. Horst. I don't know his last name, so this will be very hard to really give validity to his teachings.. I can't really preach anything about him because there's no reason for you to believe anything I say of him.

~

Excuse me? It doesn't sound like a very serious aspect of your life; not very surprising at all.

Originally Posted by really

I understand what you mean, it is a funny connection! But I'm not going to say "Oh it's so vague and unreal".

Physics demonstrates how this energy relates to us.

Yeah. Thanks for that... And your point?

The point is that there is an obvious bias in that, unless I mention who you studied under or what you studied, I am wrong.

I guess the short answer is "no", then.

Oh seriously fuck off. What is this? I don't know how you can be anymore arrogant right now.

As a decent reference, my primary "spiritual" influence is from the Tibetan Book of the Dead and Carl Jung. Although, I am sure you have many reason for why they are "mistaken".

Excuse me? It doesn't sound like a very serious aspect of your life; not very surprising at all.

Come on, man, don't be an assclown.

I seriously treasure my relationship with this guy and he taught me a hell of a lot. I would never have studied chakra's had it not been for him (whether or not they are "true" or not is irrelevant).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Physics demonstrates how this energy relates to us.

Continue...

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point is that there is an obvious bias in that, unless I mention who you studied under or what you studied, I am wrong.

No, that's not the point. I am seriously asking to see if you have actually done some research or are seeking oneSelf under the guidance of a teacher.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh seriously fuck off. What is this? I don't know how you can be anymore arrogant right now.

So far, I don't see how it is related to what I am asking. Don't take it the wrong way, though.

Originally Posted by O'nus

As a decent reference, my primary "spiritual" influence is from the Tibetan Book of the Dead and Carl Jung. Although, I am sure you have many reason for why they are "mistaken".

Thank you. And whats mistaken?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Come on, man, don't be an assclown.

I seriously treasure my relationship with this guy and he taught me a hell of a lot. I would never have studied chakra's had it not been for him (whether or not they are "true" or not is irrelevant).

~

Thank you for sharing. No need to feel offended, you gave me a bad impression that's all.

Originally Posted by really

Continue...

Okay forget it. Your question was asking me "What is real?" so let's call it information and sensation interpreted by your brain. Tah dah.

No, that's not the point. I am seriously asking to see if you have actually done some research or are seeking oneSelf under the guidance of a teacher.

Even though I am sure there will be much mockery...

Stefan Barton and Horst. I don't know Horst's last name - he wouldn't tell me.

So far, I don't see how it is related to what I am asking. Don't take it the wrong way, though.

"I studied aikido which incorporates the spirit"
"No"

Not related, how?

Thank you. And whats mistaken?

Nothing.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Okay forget it. Your question was asking me "What is real?" so let's call it information and sensation interpreted by your brain. Tah dah.

I guess it must be too hard for you to explain, here. Nevermind.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Even though I am sure there will be much mockery...

Stefan Barton and Horst. I don't know Horst's last name - he wouldn't tell me.

Thank you.

No, don't be paranoid that they will be mocked. I just want you to form more of a picture of where you're coming from. I.e. Some personal background.

Originally Posted by O'nus

"I studied aikido which incorporates the spirit"
"No"

Not related, how?

Sure, I'm glad it is related to Spirit. But not related as I said: "... they are likely not about the realization of Spirit. It doesn't make them wrong, but inapplicable." I mean, I doubt you'd study it for the purpose of Self-Realization. Or, do you think it will lead to an direct understanding of it?

Have these practices been of assistance with regard to this topic? I think my reference to Spiritual identity would be of greater help, you see.

Originally Posted by really

Sure, I'm glad it is related to Spirit. But not related as I said: "... they are likely not about the realization of Spirit. It doesn't make them wrong, but inapplicable." I mean, I doubt you'd study it for the purpose of Self-Realization. Or, do you think it will lead to an direct understanding of it?

Have these practices been of assistance with regard to this topic? I think my reference to Spiritual identity would be of greater help, you see.

Almost everything assists with the realization of the self. My intention with these paths was for self-realization. Although, I do everything with that intent. It's a way of life, really.. is it not?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Almost everything assists with the realization of the self. My intention with these paths was for self-realization. Although, I do everything with that intent. It's a way of life, really.. is it not?

~

Yes, it can be a way of life! To live one's life as a prayer; devoted.

But, that is beside the point here.

+ What is the spirit?

A metaphor used by less civilized cultures to describe various forces attributed to "good", such as the driving force of life, creation, thought, existence, emotion, love, personality, etc.

+ How is the spirit different from:
- The mind:

It is not the mind in certain cosmologies and worldviews, especially pertaining to those that consider organisms such as plants and objects such as planet, which lack a brain and therefore a mind.

- The body:

It is not the body in certain cosmologies and worldviews, for it may be the origin of the body, a byproduct of its processes, the force that keeps it functioning, a sort of "double-self", and may or may not be physical at all.

- Passion:

It is not passion in certain cosmologies and worldviews, for it may be possessed by nonliving things or those that lack a brain. Then again, it might be the "passion" of the demiurge, and may be attached to any cosmic consciousness(es) that exist.

- Energy:

It is not energy in certain cosmologies and worldviews, for it may actually be a sort of creative power, which may have been the origin for energy as we know it in the physical universe. A sort of "original energy" which our own is a mimicry of.

In my honest opinion, the spirit is a loosely defined term that has various meanings, all of them ascribing forces of nature that are not well-defined by those that perceive it, theoretical, and/or supernatural and theological.