Do we have a spirit and, if so, what role does it play in our relationship with God?

[Thomas]

I have a rather Buddhist view of dreams, so do not necessarily read them the same way as you.

The point I was trying to make in my pointers above, is if you wish to understand the spirit and the spiritual realms, then one can do a lot worse than look to the Spiritual Traditions for, if nothing else, a grounded anthropological context.

It does seem to me you're trying to feel your way blindfolded through territory already well-mapped by others, or, as another analogy has it, cross the ocean without chart or compass or any sure idea where you're heading.

 

[Yahweh kid]

That is contradictory.
You imply that Lucifer was "kicked out", but you are not, merely because Jesus "paid for you".
Makes no sense .. we are all responsible for our own sins (crimes), regardless of belief.

Yes, lucifer was kicked out, I have never been in Heaven, so how can I be kicked out? Yes, we are responsible for our sins..... that is why we will all go to hell as our punishment.

 

[Yahweh kid]

That is so in Hinduism also. For a small good deed, perhaps half-a-day in heaven. For a small evil deed, perhaps half-a-day in hell.
One gets what the deed deserves. Total proportionality.
Even Gods cannot interfere.The Lord of Death, Yama has his rules. No partiality, even when it concerns souls who were not Hindus.
Well, Hindu Gods have no problems with sinners. They are allowed further births to improve after they have served their time in hell. Gods cannot do much about that. But sinners get a total of 8.4 million life-times (Lakh Chaurasi). Gods are kind.

So too in Sikhism:
"Chaurasi Lakh refers to the concept in Sikhism of 8.4 million life forms or lifetimes that a soul can experience through the cycle of reincarnation. It emphasizes the importance of human life as a rare opportunity to achieve spiritual liberation and connect with God."
SikhiWiki sikhchic.com

Does all your gods have different rules?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You imply that Lucifer was "kicked out", but you are not, merely because Jesus "paid for you".
Makes no sense .. we are all responsible for our own sins (crimes), regardless of belief.

God, soul and messengers, none of it makes sense to me.

Does all your gods have different rules?

I am an atheist Hindu, so no Gods for me. But for Hindu theists, Gods do not give any rules. Rules are from society, and Gods like it when we go by the rules and traditions of our particular society (dharma).

 

[Thomas]

Hi @otherbrother –

Just wanted to come in with a couple of comments on things said.

Do they explore spiritual self-healing techniques to do as they wait? Or do they mostly hope and wait? It seems to me as a lifelong churchgoer that the latter is more common than the former.

That rather depends on what 'spiritual self-healing techniques' you're talking about. There's a vast array of pseudo-spirituality out there, and my general rule-of-thumb is, if the work 'technique' appears, I walk away.

The ideology of what William James called the 'Mind-Cure Movement' – Christian Science, New Thought – grew out of 19th century Americana. The same ideas being later applied the 'Prosperity Gospel' teachings (basically, good people get rich), and then later the idea of 'technique' in spiritual practice, 'do this and that happens' to meditation and Yoga practice.

In my vocabulary there are no 'spiritual self-healing techniques'. That's not how the Spirit works. With regard to lower-case 's' spirit, then that's somewhere in and around one's mental-emotional faculties. There are exercises and practices towards well-being, and as such then the term technique applies, but otherwise, applied to spirituality as such, I think not.

I worked with a guy who was a serious Tai-Chi practitioner. He had a friend who was receiving chemo therapy for cancer, and the treatment would induce nausea, and knock him out for at least a day. His TC instructor gave him a breathing exercise to do before and after treatment, and the guy found himself able to return to the office, and function, the same day as morning chemo. The medicos were quite surprised.

Was this a secret spiritual practice? It can be seen as such, in context, but really, it's simply sound physical method – breathing – to achieve a certain resting state. It's not 'spiritual' in that sense at all, it's just a practice that has been kept alive in certain traditions, but generally ignored in the world. It can be a necessary preparation prior to spiritual practice, but that's about it.

On the other hand, if a person is serious about growing spiritually, wouldn’t he or she seek a deeper and fuller understanding of spirituality?

Yes, and the paths are there.

Speaking in Christian terms, I'd offer:
The practice of the inner life sans pareil is prayer. This should be learned, and you are right in the sense we're taught to prayer as kids, but rarely instructed in prayer as grown-ups. Lectio Divina.

The practice of the outer life, is the practice of virtue.
"We, body and spirit, have desires that are at odds with one another until Christ our Lord comes to help. He places the jewels of the virtues in their proper places — and in the place of sin, he builds the courts of his temple. He makes for the soul ornaments from its dark past to delight Wisdom as she reigns forever on her glorious throne. (Psychomachia, Aurelius Prudentius Clemens (c348-413CE).

All the virtues are there, if minimally, in the Golden Rule, "Do unto others ... "

The Latin term 'virtue' comes from the Greek ἀρετή, aretḗ, a concept in ancient Greek thought that refers to 'excellence' of any kind, by which was meant the person (or thing) reaching its fullest potential, or fulfilling its inherent function. It came to be applied to moral excellence, but only because in the Greek ideal, all life and all being is ordered towards the Good.

The Greek schools consistently identified four qualities as central to a life of moral excellence: prudence (wisdom), justice, temperance (self-control), and fortitude (courage). They are there in the Greek LXX canon of Hebrew scriptures The Wisdom of Solomon: "If anyone loves righteousness, her labours are virtues (aretai); for she teaches self-control and prudence, justice and courage; nothing in life is more profitable for men than these" (Wisdom 8:7)

Ambrose of Milan (c340–397CE) saw the four classical virtues as "cardinal" (Lt: cardo, 'hinge') from all other moral virtues depended. Added to these, the three transcendent/theological/spiritual virtues of 1 Corinthians 13:13: "So faith (πίστις, pistis), hope (ἐλπίς, elpis), and love (ἀγάπη, agápē) abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Augustine (354–430CE) argued that all the virtues ultimately grew out of the greatest theological virtue, love:
"... temperance is love giving itself entirely to that which is loved; fortitude is love readily bearing all things for the sake of the loved object; justice is love serving only the loved object, and therefore ruling rightly; prudence is love distinguishing with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it. The object of this love is not anything, but only God, the chief good, the highest wisdom, the perfect harmony." (Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic Church, 15.25)

This practice then, this technique, is the living of 'the Christian life'. Love of God in prayer, love of neighbour in practice. If one's focus is God, then in everything one does, one is mindful of that, and it is a spiritual practice, a spiritual engagement, a spiritual life.

Does it show? No. Are there signs? No. Nor does such a soul seek them. The life is lived with no thought of reward. It is lived because it is the right way to live. A spiritual life gives its all and asks nothing in return.

 

[Thomas]

On the other hand, if a person is serious about growing spiritually, wouldn’t he or she seek a deeper and fuller understanding of spirituality? If, in fact, he/she has a spirit that is assigned to them with such consistency as to be considered his/her own spirit, wouldn’t it behoove him/her to learn about it and use it? Failure to do so might at some point be considered willful ignorance.

Have you sought such understandings? I am continually pointing you in those directions.

The idea of the Heavenly Other, the twin who is in some sense oneself as much as a counterpart, is an ancient among various gnostic systems. It's there in Manichænism, with Mani believing he had a revelation from his higher self. It's there in Jewish and Christian speculation, it survives and transitioned into the doctrine of the guardian angel, who is in some sense both one’s warden and in some sense one’s goal or the final end of personal becoming.

And there is also, in antiquity, the idea that each person has a personal daimon, in dialogue with which Greek-speaking Jews and Christians developed their demonologies, and here we have the implications of 'the dark other'.

It's there in the Orthodox belief of the many logoi, which serve as a kind of blueprint and therefore the ideal of one's individual and concrete being. Along with that, the logismoi serve in the place of the earlier daimon. Although they were seen more as 'thoughts' rather than entities, Orthodox spiritual masters were aware that such psychologies could 'take on a life of their own', and regarded that as something perhaps substantially more than an analogous term.

The idea then, of a trajectory towards either the light or the dark, is fundamental to the apocalyptic traditions and the gnostics in later antiquity. In some ancient gnostic sources, the spiritual and moral struggle was not merely a rejection of the dark in favour of the light, but to necessarily face it. From these 1st-2nd century apocalypses, to Dante and even on, much later, to Jung, the way is not necessarily up, and invariably it is down. The seer must first confront the underworld, both the cosmic and the psychic, before they can ascend to the empyrean. Here, also, we can consider the Multiple States of Being (via Guénon) in Hindu metaphysics, the various eschatalogical modes and states in Buddhism, and the Imaginal Realms in Sufi literature (via Corbin). The stratification or fragmentation of the self across multiple psychocorporeal entities – daimon, human, angelos and so on – not only in succession but simultaneously, the latter being something rarely discussed.

+++

I made this point specifically, with two things in mind. The first is that well-worn aphorism, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", and the tendency in both theist and non-theist traditions, to treat such phenomena as suspicious, and things to be held at arm's length.

The second is from the first, this is, for the psyche and the persona, a perilous path. In the New Testament, Jesus, Paul and John were all suspicious of such entities. In the New Testament, Angels are spoken of, but rarely play any part, and when they do, it is only in service to Christ's mission. While intransigent humans fail to comprehend just who Jesus is, and sometimes even declare him to be in league with the devil, the daimon themselves are under no illusion; they know exactly who he is, and he binds them to secrecy on the matter (Mark 1:34, Luke 4:31).

Paul and John warn against them – the Enemy is the master of disguise, even to the extent of presenting himself as a being of light – and the discernment of spirits is a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit, given to a few, for the benefit of the community.

Likewise the Fathers were suspicious of spirits (following Plato as well as Paul).

In short, all the spiritual traditions regard the idea of concourse with the spirits as something bounded by huge risks and dangers.

+++

Then again, why have leaders of religion not emphasized the concept and experience of an individual’s spirit? Was it considered too difficult for the congregants? Too dangerous, as in “don’t try this at home?” Or was there a bit of something akin to Munchausen’s syndrome in which the leaders fed off of their followers’ dependency?

Because Jesus never emphasised the idea of an engagement with the individual spirit. He, and the whole Christian Tradition speak of the indwelling Spirit of God, but no other spirit. Engagement with God is the aim and point of the Christian life, not spirits.

And Yes, it is enormously difficult and fraught with dangers and not to undertaken without guidance.
And Yes, it is dangerous, definitely 'don't try this at home'.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe it’s time for us to look for a solution to the problem of stunted spiritual growth. It seems to me that this would be a good time to seriously consider/contemplate and experiment with the notion that we have a spirit, and that it can assist us with optimal living.

OK.

So my remedy is twofold:
The first is as said, prayer and the practice of virtue ... that leads to a direct human-divine connection, and is therefore the optimal life.

Read and study the writings on the Imaginal Realm, especially those who have deeply considered the wisdom of the great traditions, and not those populist authors who cherry-pick from well-known spiritual texts and add a gloss of their own pseudo-spirituality.
Then locate your own experience within that broader context.

 

[otherbrother]

If I’m a good student or client, I begin to identify more with my spirit than I do with my physical form.

Perhaps our dreams (my night school sessions) are rehearsals for the main act or self actualization in days or months or even years to come.
What I said a good student may do actually happen a few days after the dream.
I was walking to our table at a restaurant this morning when upon reflecting about some of the unusual accomplishments in my life, it appeared to me that Darrell is more of a stranger than the spirit of Darrell who in its inspired moments did exceptional things that regular Darrell isn’t known for. In that brief moment on my way to joining my wife at the restaurant table I identified more with my spirit than I did with my regular self (“Concrete Self”).
Afterwards I recalled discussions about state vs trait in understanding human behavior. Those saying that traits mainly predict behavior would say you can count on regular Darrell to do what he almost always does, Those who say states related to environmental situations would say Darrell can be expected to act according to the situation even if it doesn’t match his M.O.
My recollection of unusual accomplishments made me lean towards the state camp instead of the trait camp. Who knows what Darrell might do given strange new situations? This view of myself also leans to my POTENTIAL more than to my apparent actuality, I have great potential to do exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly. Spirit seems closer to the domain of potential than actually. Depok Chopra’s view of God as Pure Potential fits my identification more with my spirit (offshoot of God) than with (apparently) actual Darrell. Ironic that the Ground Being which is the Creator of the manifested/actual/incarnated Darrell is also the source of POTENTIAL to be more than meets the eye when it comes to this being called Darrell (or Other Brother).
My trans-identity experience also fits last night’s dream where I had many good and loving interactions with a variety of pets but my main beloved pet had gone missing. I now think that regular actual Darrell was my missing pet. My spirit (“Connected Self”) knows other possibilities of Darrell and trusts that the familiar Darrell will be there when needed but that there is no need to cling in desperate dependency to that “pet.”

 

[Thomas]

In retrospect ...

I seem unnecessarily critical or dismissive of the Imaginal Realm, of @otherbrother's attempts at understanding, or explaining ... but really, I am not.

What I am conscious of is to treat that subject seriously and properly will engage such an uphill struggle against such contrary currents that render the endeavour a task of Herculean proportion.

Just about every trend of the modern world mitigates against it: The Philosophy of Relativism, the triumph of subjective narrative over objective truth (in which truth becomes negotiable; all Evangelium as 'fake news'), the backwash of the 'Enlightenment', the Philosophy of Materialism, and the tsunami of pseudo-science, pseudo-spirituality, pseudo-philosophy, the cascade of outraged opinion through social media, the relentless march of commercialism and commodification which measure the worth and value of human life according to its measure of the capacity to consume more, through its new-found AI algorithms and the constant noise of digital media ... it's not so much swimming against the current as trying to climb a waterfall.

 

[otherbrother]

The idea of the Heavenly Other, the twin who is in some sense oneself as much as a counterpart, is an ancient among various gnostic systems. It's there in Manichænism, with Mani believing he had a revelation from his higher self. It's there in Jewish and Christian speculation, it survives and transitioned into the doctrine of the guardian angel, who is in some sense both one’s warden and in some sense one’s goal or the final end of personal becoming.

And there is also, in antiquity, the idea that each person has a personal daimon, in dialogue with which Greek-speaking Jews and Christians developed their demonologies, and here we have the implications of 'the dark other'.

I think your scholarly gift compliments my play-by-ear gift. I think I avoid some scholarship in order to discover the same or similar truths via natural exploration (mystogany”?) . I like the mystery at the same time I like the discovery. Maybe I’m just a bit histrionic/dramatic. I prefer peek-a-boo over paint by numbers. Probably a preference for a right-brain approach. But I enjoy the analysis after the mystical “fact.” I may (probably WILL) eventually actually study what you recommend.
And hopefully I am intuitively drawn to ANGELS more than demons . I am emotionally secure about that (angels) being the case, since I have mostly known and grown love in my life.

 

[otherbrother]

What I am conscious of is to treat that subject seriously and properly will engage such an uphill struggle against such contrary currents that render the endeavour a task of Herculean proportion.

I agree with the seriousness/reverence ethic even though I often shoot from the hips initially. What do we really want to aim at/for? Not “boy howdy, I’m sure havin’ fun!”
And I agree about the risk of histrionic shallowness in the modern culture. We both value being deeper than that.

 

[otherbrother]

the relentless march of commercialism and commodification which measure the worth and value of human life according to its measure of the capacity to consume more, through its new-found AI algorithms and the constant noise of digital media ... it's not so much swimming against the current as trying to climb a waterfall.

So very true. I hate the distortions, even though I love to “swim” in a similar imaginative ocean. I think imagination has been misused for escapist entertainment instead of mysticism proper.

 

[otherbrother]

So very true. I hate the distortions, even though I love to “swim” in a similar imaginative ocean. I think imagination has been misused for escapist entertainment instead of mysticism proper.

Thomas. Psychology speaking, I think maybe we have found each other’s (hidden or non-dominant but real) sides in each other. We are experiencing character development at the same time our philosophical/theological views are converging. Very Jungian!

 

[Thomas]

Probably a preference for a right-brain approach.

I don't dispute that, but I do rather sense defining it as such is a left-brain narrative, which is not a critique, btw, I think yours is, like mine, a holistic response that surfaces in different ways.

When I look back, what drew me to my areas of interest was very much a 'right-brain' response – in reading the Fathers, I loved it before I understood it. My first response was visceral, rather than intellectual (that bit has always struggled to keep up).

My finding the 'Trads', a school of the Perennial Tradition, was the same. I saw a book, looked at the first page, but being against the clock, put it back on the shelf and left the shop and had an intense physical reaction which 'forced' me to go back and buy the book.

 

[otherbrother]

In retrospect ...

I seem unnecessarily critical or dismissive of the Imaginal Realm, of @otherbrother's attempts at understanding, or explaining ... but really, I am not.

What I am conscious of is to treat that subject seriously and properly will engage such an uphill struggle against such contrary currents that render the endeavour a task of Herculean proportion.

Just about every trend of the modern world mitigates against it: The Philosophy of Relativism, the triumph of subjective narrative over objective truth (in which truth becomes negotiable; all Evangelium as 'fake news'), the backwash of the 'Enlightenment', the Philosophy of Materialism, and the tsunami of pseudo-science, pseudo-spirituality, pseudo-philosophy, the cascade of outraged opinion through social media, the relentless march of commercialism and commodification which measure the worth and value of human life according to its measure of the capacity to consume more, through its new-found AI algorithms and the constant noise of digital media ... it's not so much swimming against the current as trying to climb a waterfall.

Regarding an attempt to be more serious, less fanciful about mystical exploration:

Alternate Techniques to Use the New Method

So far, I’ve heavily emphasized dream work. To me, our dreamtime is when our “veils” (covering our consciousness of spiritual affairs) are naturally “thinner.” I’m just grabbing the low hanging fruit of increased spiritual awareness and understanding. But not everyone is a dreaming machine like me!

And dream work leaves a lot of interpretive “work” outside of the dreams themselves, which means there is plenty of room for misinterpretation. Just as there is a danger of misinterpreting the Bible, dreams can be interpreted in both incomplete and completely wrong (harmful, dysfunctional) ways.

The Gestalt Therapy concept of being aware of our mental projections and then trying to “reclaim” them seems to be the best way to process dreams, as well as Biblical texts. Allowing many rounds of projection and reclamation is probably the wisest approach. It’s best to not hang our hats on one or only a few apparently meaningful dreams. It’s better to look for symbols and signs across whole series of dreams. Conceptualizing one’s dream life as an ongoing “night school” (my own metaphor, but feel free to use it, or not) is a good way to sense a divine curriculum with recurring themes.

A technique that I call “acting through” allows us to get to know our Connected Selves by imaginatively allowing real life situations as providing symbols and signs that we can use to view the familiar reality in a deeper, more meaningful (and probably more spiritual) way. The objective reality around us is allowed to take on a subjective, revelatory, truth tone.

Real life events are experienced as psychodramas from which we have instructive takeaways. Basically, I’m talking about constructive daydreaming, but daydreaming that is pinned to the here and now instead of drifting off to the side somewhere in space and time. Perhaps it is “luciddaydreaming.”

The technique of acting through is very much in line with the traditional practice of reading God’s “signs.” But both techniques work best if one doesn’t take the signs too literally. The risk of misinterpretation should be humbly and carefully considered in the same way as it should be considered for dream interpretation and Biblical interpretation.

Life is a potential Ink Blot test from which we can learn something about our True Selves, but we would be rejecting our earthly missions if we allowed imagination to distort reality. The key is to be able to see the blob of ink (the realistic view of the situation) while simultaneously seeing something more. Imagination, wisely used, can help us get to know our Connected Selves and sense the Divine.