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

[otherbrother]

Thanks Light Within for pointing out the eclecticism in the New Age beliefs. It is especially important here in this discussion, since I am borrowing a concept from the New Age school of thought—the notion that an individual spirit accepts an earthly assignment by supporting a specific human life. Even though I rely on Christianity as my spiritual maintenance and growth vehicle, I take advantage of concepts from other faith traditions that can help me grow also. When I postulate the spirit leaving and returning to the body during the sleep/dreaming cycle it certainly seems in line with New Age thought, but also Hindu reincarnation beliefs. How many other lives has Darrell’s (Other Brother’s) spirit stewarded? At the same time I don’t rule out the possibility and utility of this spirit simply being a psychological aspect of my own capacity to be spiritual. It could be but a FUNCTION that my whole self system allows and includes. By relating to my spirit like it is a being that helps me grow spiritually, I may be tapping into this human potential for connectedness, wholeness, unity. This modern, psychological, view works too for me. It’s only drawback may be that “psychological” tends to be associated with regular mind instead of functions that extend beyond regular mental activities. If transcendence is included in “psychological,” then the psychological view is not limiting of spiritual awareness, maintenance, and growth. Otherwise it may be like Hu Ning’s (father of Zen Buddhism) criticism the northern school’s emphasis of emptying the mind as being like polishing a mirror with a brick. Regular mind is too coarse for enlightenment.
Swinging back to the psychological view, my dream interpretation would focus perhaps on the dream realm as potential that upon awakening must interface with the realm of actually. This could be symbolized as a “spirit” reentering the body.
In a recent dream, I was a prison guard, although sensed as not fully legitimate in that role. When I left the institution to find my parked car (my actual self or embodied self) my car had disappeared. How would I go home? Also my car keys that I recalled seeing on the ground had disappeared. And yet I woke up anyway.
My standard New-Agey interpretation would be that my spirit was highly reluctant to physically go back into such a body. It didn’t want to recognize it as its vehicle. But if it were to refuse to find my body, I would have died. I didn’t, so I’m assuming it relocated there even though it was not revealed in the dream. I woke up without the lucidity of seeing the reentering process completed.
But in terms of potential, my potential to be like a prison guard did not fit with Darrell’s actuality. Fortunately it had no place there.
The day residue that inspired the dream was my willingness to not call out someone who showed bigotry. I minimized or suppressed my failure to be true to myself. I opted not to rock the boat socially, when my ideal self would have (perhaps gracefully but rocked nonetheless).

I forgot that I was in a bad mood, kind of lost, not myself, early the next morning, but came out of it and went on to have a good day. I think I was operating without my positive potential or spirited self for awhile, but then had insight about my dream and decided to write it off as a life lesson instead of remaining down on myself or estranged from myself. I had a means by which to forgive myself for my missing the mark, my sin.

 

[otherbrother]

I forgot that I was in a bad mood, kind of lost, not myself, early the next morning, but came out of it and went on to have a good day. I think I was operating without my positive potential or spirited self for awhile, but then had insight about my dream and decided to write it off as a life lesson instead of remaining down on myself or estranged from myself. I had a means by which to forgive myself for my missing the mark, my sin.

I also decided it was time to get back to running after taking a three week break after my marathon. I was missing the sense of flow, Running is a meditative act for me, even though often not an easy one. It seems a worthwhile, kind of “religious,” discipline for me. I was ashamed of how humped over my running form was in pictures from the marathon. But this shame is but a dark side of fake social relating. I didn’t measure up to others. I decided it was time to let go of the shame and embrace the gift of flow and of doing my best regardless of how ugly it looks.

 

[otherbrother]

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 saw my comatose son’s neurons weaving back together as strands of light. Later I saw my wife and me and him walking with Jesus toward the Ocean whose healing breeze was felt on our collective foreheads. His healing was remarkable. He shows no signs of brain damage. The doctors attributed it to his young age and the accompanying brain plasticity. I think spiritual healing played a role as well. The part where I was willing to use visualization as a “technique,” did not seem to interfere with God’s intervention. Rather, it seemed to call upon God for help. It seemed to channel God’s healing energy.
I decided to go to a deep place in my mind (or deeper still, but mentally intended) because there was nothing else I could do and because I loved my son. I did something for my son by going deep and being open to Ultimate Reality, God. If it was all God, brought on by my prayer, it was me who decided to pray, and in a different way than normal word prayer. It seemed a technique for prayer, if not an outright “spiritual technique.” It seemed to work. If it had no effect on my son, it at least had a good effect on his grieving father, who in turn was needed by his son. Seems intentionally spiritual to me. I would hate for others to miss the opportunity, especially when so desperately needed. I’m sold on “going deep.”

 

[otherbrother]

I saw my comatose son’s neurons weaving back together as strands of light. Later I saw my wife and me and him walking with Jesus toward the Ocean whose healing breeze was felt on our collective foreheads. His healing was remarkable. He shows no signs of brain damage. The doctors attributed it to his young age and the accompanying brain plasticity. I think spiritual healing played a role as well. The part where I was willing to use visualization as a “technique,” did not seem to interfere with God’s intervention. Rather, it seemed to call upon God for help. It seemed to channel God’s healing energy.
I decided to go to a deep place in my mind (or deeper still, but mentally intended) because there was nothing else I could do and because I loved my son. I did something for my son by going deep and being open to Ultimate Reality, God. If it was all God, brought on by my prayer, it was me who decided to pray, and in a different way than normal word prayer. It seemed a technique for prayer, if not an outright “spiritual technique.” It seemed to work. If it had no effect on my son, it at least had a good effect on his grieving father, who in turn was needed by his son. Seems intentionally spiritual to me. I would hate for others to miss the opportunity, especially when so desperately needed. I’m sold on “going deep.”

Granted, it was not a regular “self” that affected the healing. It was a deeper “self” than that.

 

[otherbrother]

Doing work for God is fine, but referring to energies is more new age theology..... Can you show scripture that refers to chakras..... tx

Would the seventh (and so forth) heavens be referencing energy ports? Qabala (sp?) believes in nine instead of seven energy centers, and it came out of Abrahamic faith tradition.

 

[otherbrother]

This continues the hiding theme.

Hiding from being our truest, spiritual, self? Because there is a fake side of relating with others instead of being our authentic selves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Plus, my generative desire to appropriately spiritually empower others who. like me, ..

Do that if they want it, otherwise let them find their own way.

And in line with getting to know our spirits

Oh, you wish to follow a particular line?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even if the detritus theory were true, would the therapeutic value of examining the emotions still be incorrect?

Is there any? Psychologists can come up with weird ideas, father fixation and mother fixation. Any attempt of finding meaning in dreams is superstition. Want to fall into the trap, I tried to warn you. Don't show your hand to a palmist. Do not try tarot cards. Don't ask about your future from a crystal gazer. And in India, keep away from Swamies and Babas. They don't bring any good.

 

[Northstar]

I never hear the individual spirit of a person being discussed in Church, only the collective versions of Spirit. Could we get to know our individual spirit as a means of better connecting with God? I see signs of something reentering my body when about to wake up from nighttime dreams. It seems like my spirit trying to align with my physical self. Is it a personal Angel? Or just a personification of a deeper aspect of my regular self? Merely psychological? Or a metaphysical reality?

Every person has a spirit, but people of the christian faith who believe in Jesus get the Holy Spirit and it leads them to truth and tries to give you messages of God and you are connected to God with it. I would not think much about what you are experiencing when you wake up.

 

[otherbrother]

Yes, a positive experience. I really liked and agree with your notion of defragmentation. The mixing and matching qualities seem to indicate a defragmentation process while dreaming. A few hornets nests (chaotic and nightmarish dreams) at times are probably just the initial stages of breaking down huge stubborn fragments. But that is preparing for eventual harmonization.

Wondering if Tillich’s Ground of Being, Dogzen’s “Primordial…(forgot rest of the phrase)” and Hindu Brahman are all similar a-being or non-being but not anti being? Contrasted to those who insist God be viewed as a being? I read a good bit of a book called Theological Sentences in which the author maintained the importance of a human-like God and argued against what he called “process theology.” I think he thought process theology was too abstract and cold to work for humans. I disagree, because one’s vibrant being is plenty warm enough to embrace an abstract process of unfolding flow (metaphor of fountain flowing).
Defragmentation would serve a unification process and principle that would not necessarily require seeing God as a separate Being, but rather as a process of being or becoming that takes on specific forms along the way. I am a glob of Brahman? A God-piece?

 

[Yahweh kid]

Would the seventh (and so forth) heavens be referencing energy ports? Qabala (sp?) believes in nine instead of seven energy centers, and it came out of Abrahamic faith tradition.

The Word is my guide, anything/traditions that contradicts the Word I do not accept as the Truth. To me, that makes my life simple and free.... I believe placing my foundation on a rock is better than sand......for sand goes with the flow. Truth does not change with the times.... Satan is the father of lies, the one who hates the humankind, who comes to kill, steal and destroy by masquerading as the good guy, the angel of light(in many cases)....

Be blessed my other brother....

 

[Thomas]

Wondering if Tillich’s Ground of Being, Dogzen’s “Primordial…(forgot rest of the phrase)” and Hindu Brahman are all similar a-being or non-being but not anti being?

I would say 'Yes, yes (I think?) and yes.'

1st Yes: Tillich's Ground of Being is not something I've explored and, not being familiar with his work in context, I always wondered why it's spoken of as Tillich's (1886-1965) Ground of Being (until I saw on wiki that 'his' theory is in opposition to Christian 'theological theism' which poses God as the Supreme Being, and as such I understand and stand with his view), as opposed to the Origen's (185-254) Ground of Being or the Christian apophatic tradition of God as 'Beyond-Being', or Eckhart's .

2nd Yes (I think?): I'm not sure if you meant Dogen Zenji (1200-1253) the Japanese practitioner of Chinese Chan Buddhism who went on to found the Soto school of Zen ...
... or the term Dzogchen, the 'ground' (Tibetan: གཞི, gzhi), in Bon and Tibetan Buddhism which refers to the primordial state before being-ness.

3rd yes: Yes.

Two things

I am a glob of Brahman? A God-piece?

In the context of Ground, no, I think not.

The Ground, Brahman, God, is that Nothingness from which things arise, the rising things are not themselves It, or qualified or quantified bits of It, or It in some manifest manner?

Defragmentation to me suggests a qualitative and/or quantitative distinction, whichI think does not apply?

The mystical traditions would favour 'detachment' over 'defragment'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a glob of Brahman? A God-piece?

Brahman cannot be divided in globs. Yes, you are Brahman, like I am too. Because inside my body and outside, there is nothing other than Brahman. Brahman is not a God. Brahmn is the substrate of the universe. A famous Indian sage of 15th Century, KABIR, explained it in this way:

"Jal mein kumbha, kumbha me jal hai, bahar bhitar pani;
phute kumba, jal jal hi samaye, kah gaye pandit gyani."

The pitcher is in water, there is water in the pitcher, outside and inside it is water;
when the pitcher breaks, water inside mixes in the water outside, so say the wise and knledgeables.
(Even the material of the pitcher is Brahman, so where do you draw a dividing line)

See, how easily an unlettered Kabir, an orphan raised by a Muslim weaver couple, explains one of the greatest mysteries of life just in two line.

Kabir - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Ground, Brahman, God, is that Nothingness from which things arise, the rising things are not themselves It, or qualified or quantified bits of It, or It in some manifest manner?
Defragmentation to me suggests a qualitative and/or quantitative distinction, whichI think does not apply?

Brahman is all-thingness as well as (possibly) nothingness too. We loose the understanding Brahman at that point.
The concept of Brahman does not entertain any qualitative or quantitative distinction AT ALL. It is one whole.

And Thomas, you might have come across my posting this famous Sanskrit Saying:
"Purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udachayate;
purnat purnam adaya, purnam eva avasishyate."
Ishavasya Upanishad

That is whole, this is whole, the whole is said to rise from the whole;
give away the whole from the whole, what remains is still whole.

om purnamadah purnamidam meaning at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[otherbrother]

2nd Yes (I think?): I'm not sure if you meant Dogen Zenji (1200-1253) the Japanese practitioner of Chinese Chan Buddhism who went on to found the Soto school of Zen ...
... or the term Dzogchen, the 'ground' (Tibetan: གཞི, gzhi), in Bon and Tibetan Buddhism which refers to the primordial state before being-ness.

The phrase was “primordial state,” from book with the word Crystal in title. It was Dzogchen with z I think. The author was really good at lucid dreaming and claimed to have materialized a text while in dream state. I have book. Will look up

 

[otherbrother]

Every person has a spirit, but people of the christian faith who believe in Jesus get the Holy Spirit and it leads them to truth and tries to give you messages of God and you are connected to God with it. I would not think much about what you are experiencing when you wake up.

Northstar, You just made my point better than I made it (other than the original statement in this discussion thread). My point is: WHY don’t we do anything with/for the individual spirit which we claim exists? My wife says she likes Indian food, but never wants to go to an Indian restaurant. She doesn’t really like Indian food. If we don’t have any religious practices related to individual spirit, we don’t really believe we have one. But I believe we do. I like going to Indian restaurants even though my wife doesn’t.
This came to me as I awoke from dreaming in the middle of night last night. It is a riddle my mind cannot quite solve, in that I can’t say definitely that I believe its conclusion. And yet I can definitely say I don’t NOT believe it. :

My God could be our God

and our God could be my God.

Your God could be our God

and our God could be our God.

But my God can’t be your God

and your God can’t be my God.

 

[otherbrother]

Northstar, You just made my point better than I made it (other than the original statement in this discussion thread). My point is: WHY don’t we do anything with/for the individual spirit which we claim exists? My wife says she likes Indian food, but never wants to go to an Indian restaurant. She doesn’t really like Indian food. If we don’t have any religious practices related to individual spirit, we don’t really believe we have one. But I believe we do. I like going to Indian restaurants even though my wife doesn’t.
This came to me as I awoke from dreaming in the middle of night last night. It is a riddle my mind cannot quite solve, in that I can’t say definitely that I believe its conclusion. And yet I can definitely say I don’t NOT believe it. :

My God could be our God

and our God could be my God.

Your God could be our God

and our God could be our God.

But my God can’t be your God

and your God can’t be my God.

error on fourth line. Should read :
“and our God could be YOUR God…”
Corrected version:

My God could be our God

and our God could be my God.

Your God could be our God

and our God could be your God.

But my God can’t be your God

and your God can’t be my God.

If God or Brahman or Ultimate Reality is the finest (most refined, small) thing in all of existence and therefore permeates all things, including human thought and consciousness, each individual person or consciousness can only apprehend it in the manner and extent he/she is capable of apprehending it. That would be their finest (most refined/pure) point of consciousness. An individual’s spirit would be at that point. Regular consciousness would not be. But a mind behind mind or spirit of the individual could (even if only BARELY sensed/detected). A Mind so far behind the individual’s mind that it is BEYOND the individual’s mind could NOT be sensed at all. It would be finer than the mind could even barely sense/detect.

Assuming that one’s consciousness is the means by which the finest “stuff” in all of existence could be detected (or that person’s closest approximation to it, according to the limits of that person’s consciousness), anything finer than that person’s consciousness (consistently “owned” or rented/borrowed) cannot be detected and, as far as that person is concerned, does not exist. It is a falling tree that doesn’t make a sound in the forest because no one is there to hear it.

The person’s consciousness is in the SUBJECTIVE realm. It would occur in Ken Wilber’s upper left quadrant of ways of knowing. This would give introverted thinkers a huge advantage over extroverted thinkers.

And introverted thinkers who are using that advantage could be confused or even crippled and contaminated if they adopt what others claim to be true, UNLESS it happens to match what the introverted thinker experiences. The subjective truth could be conveyed by extroverted thinkers, but the human origin of the “truth” would have to be a fellow introverted thinker.
The concept and function of an individual’s spirit is a subjective truth that can only be appreciated by introverted thinkers. Extroverted thinkers would conceive is as traditional Christianity seems to conceive it, “ours” or “His.”

 

[otherbrother]

If God or Brahman or Ultimate Reality is the finest (most refined, small) thing in all of existence and therefore permeates all things, including human thought and consciousness,

In terms of energy, I would assume the electromagnetic concept of “higher frequency” energy would be “finer” than lower frequency energy. This would fit with some spiritual thinkers who speak of higher frequency energy as being associated with higher consciousness.

 

[otherbrother]

Brahmn is the substrate of the universe.

I can see why we may personify it though since it is a source of potential, which is for us potentially good, like a good person who can help us or whom we can thank and can love. Relationships are important to us. But I also can see the advantage of just opening up psychologically to something deep inside of us like a substrate of reality. It doesn’t have the baggage that a relationship (which involves a you and me, duality) can have. God for warmth but substrate for the effectiveness and proficiency that living in a physical realm requires.
Both/and? As needed?

 

[Aupmanyav]

God for warmth but substrate for the effectiveness and proficiency that living in a physical realm requires.

Yeah, people say God is a crutch. Many people need it.