SPIRIT: The Added Dimension

[Jeannot]

SPIRIT: The Added Dimension

We're told that we're composed of a body and a soul. Then we wonder if the soul is immortal. In personal terms, this becomes, "Will I live forever?"

Maybe we're selling ourselves short.

That may be the wrong question, wrong because it frames the question in too-narrow terms. Centuries ago, the Neo-Platonic philosophy (Plotinus, Augustine, etc.) maintained that we're not composed of two parts, but three: Body, Soul, and Spirit.

We all know that the body dies, rots, and crumbles into dust. But what about the soul? Soul we think of as Ego and Mind. The ME-ness of me. And maybe that doesn't survive either, or if it does, not for very long. Ancient Hebrew literature had the concept of Sheol, a place where ALL the dead go. It's kind of like Hades as depicted in THE ODYSSEY. Not a very attractive place, but one where souls wander around moaning. But the writers had a sense that there might be some kind of survival.

So maybe we shouldn't WANT the soul to survive. But there may be another part of us. I think that certain religious leaders were in touch with Spirit, at least at times. Probably the people around Jesus felt this in him. The incident of "The Transfiguration" in Matt & Luke may be a memory of this phenomenon.

I think that people like Siddhartha, Martin Luther King and William Blake were also frequently in touch with Spirit. And I think Zen is an attempt to bypass our ordinary Ego-consciousness in order to get in touch with Spirit.

Spirit is available to everyone, by virtue of being human. Therefore, since each person is an actual, or potential, bearer of spirit, each person has infinite worth. A crime against a person is a crime against Spirit.

The problem is, the Ego gets hold of the insights of Spirit, and immediately degrades them. The Ego sets up religious organizations with their strict creeds, their intolerance, and their exclusivity. But as the Bible says (I forget where), "The Spirit blows where it lists, and no man knows the movements thereof."

The religious person may be denied any meaningful contact with Spirit, and it may be granted to the pornographer, or the prostitute, the corrupt official, or the homeless person, or the outcast (or even conceivably, the banker). Jesus seemed to know this, and the religious people of his day were shocked that he associated with such people.

The Spirit is a haunting presence, not in the sense of being a ghost, but in the sense of being something just beyond the reach of consciousness. Consciousness is really self-consciousness, our own self-awareness of ourselves in relation to our environment. The Ego sits at the center of consciousness like a spider in his web. It becomes aware of the slightest opportunity to enhance itself, and is immediately conscious of any threat. Jacques Lacan said that the Ego is paranoid in its essence.

To put this in terms of modern psychology, I think the distinction that Carl Jung makes between the Ego and the True Self is useful. We could think of Ego as soul, and the True Self as Spirit.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is no prescribed way, no official program or course of action to get into touch with Spirit. I don't know much about the Hindu religion, but I understand that they have the concept of Atman. Atman is at the same time both the deepest part of ourselves (the Spirit)_and also the Universal Spirit. It is when we get in touch with our Spirit that we are closest to all other people, not in their everyday lives, but in their Spirit.

Soul is temporal, the Spirit is eternal. (NOTE: Eternity doesn't mean a long, long, time, but just the opposite: no time at all)

Bottom Line: The soul may not survive, but the Spirit almost certainly does. Spirit would be the deepest Self.

(NOTE: As Aquinas said, all living things have souls, even plants. This is true by very defintion, since the soul (acc. To Aquinas) is the “principle of life.”

 

[wil]

Body, Spirit and Soul,

I agree, however see it as my Body is this physical incarnation in 3d the journey my soul took to this plane.

I see my Soul as the eternal portion, the one that decided to come to this earthly existence, chose my parents, came on a mission to learn some things about love, envy, jealousy, hate, pain..things it couldn't learn without a body, things that it needed senses and a brain and an ego to facilitate.

Spirit, G-d within, my connection to source also eternal...but this is my internal ISDN, high speed line to all that is...guiding me when I decide to turn on the modem, but always there, in me, ready when I am.

 

[Jeannot]

Body, Spirit and Soul,

I agree, however see it as my Body is this physical incarnation in 3d the journey my soul took to this plane.

I see my Soul as the eternal portion, the one that decided to come to this earthly existence, chose my parents, came on a mission to learn some things about love, envy, jealousy, hate, pain..things it couldn't learn without a body, things that it needed senses and a brain and an ego to facilitate.

Spirit, G-d within, my connection to source also eternal...but this is my internal ISDN, high speed line to all that is...guiding me when I decide to turn on the modem, but always there, in me, ready when I am.

A valid view, I think.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Most mystic traditions divide the self into various numbers of parts, arranged by degrees of refinement. This can be a useful model for the way we are aware of our existence but is really only an aid to unscrambling the bewildering mass of influences that push and pull us through our lives.

Yet common to most people is what Wordsworth called "the sense of something far more deeply interfused", that something just beyond consciousness that Jeannot describes. We can't be sure what that is. It may be our larger selves within which we experience our physical lives; it may simply be the lingering awareness that we are all a part of the earth's biosphere, not separate beings at all. (As someone once said, it is less shocking that we share 95% of our genes with a chimpanzee, than that we share 30% of them with a daffodil)!

Perhaps it doesn't matter what it is as long as we don't deny its existence. It is that denial that is destroying our lives and our world.

 

[Jeannot]

Most mystic traditions divide the self into various numbers of parts, arranged by degrees of refinement. This can be a useful model for the way we are aware of our existence but is really only an aid to unscrambling the bewildering mass of influences that push and pull us through our lives.

Yet common to most people is what Wordsworth called "the sense of something far more deeply interfused", that something just beyond consciousness that Jeannot describes. We can't be sure what that is. It may be our larger selves within which we experience our physical lives; it may simply be the lingering awareness that we are all a part of the earth's biosphere, not separate beings at all. (As someone once said, it is less shocking that we share 95% of our genes with a chimpanzee, than that we share 30% of them with a daffodil)!

Perhaps it doesn't matter what it is as long as we don't deny its existence. It is that denial that is destroying our lives and our world.

Good points. Here's something I've posted before, but it may be relevant here:

MYSTICISM AND DOGMATISM: “Everything that Rises Must Converge” (Teilhard de Chardin)

Jesus said, “I will draw all men to Me.” ALL men. Of course, such drawing is more obvious in some cases than in others.

When St Thomas Aquinas finished writing the long, dogmatic, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, he is reported to have said "Burn it. It is straw." Supposedly he said this under the influence of a more direct apprehension of God.

My thesis, baldly stated, is that dogma divides; mysticism unites. Or to put it less baldly, dogma is the scaffolding of religion, to be removed once the building is complete. Or perhaps, to switch the analogy and its import, the scales that musicians learn, only to be forgotten, absorbed, or transcended when a certain level of mastery is achieved.

Paul William Roberts reports on his conversation with a Sufi mystic, the Ayatollah Khazzari, who said, "We have made a great error turning our faith into our politics. It has twisted the truth in it, making the inner outer, the particular general. Are not all religions one?"

Mysticism tends to see dogmatic positions as guidelines toward the ineffable, not as full statements of divine truth. The limitations of language, coupled with the limitation of the human mind, render all such statements ultimately unsatisfactory. Our fundamental categories of Being and Non-Being, the basis of our logic, are, mystics tell us, inadequate: God transcends such a distinction. The ideas of God constructed by dogma inevitably produce an anthropomorphic God.

The dogmatist distrusts mysticism. One favorite thrust is that mysticism "begins in mist, and ends in schism." To the dogmatist, the mystic eschews the clarity of thought afforded by dogmas, and ends by disregarding those dogmas altogether.

The mystic, of course, sees the dogmas as shackles in his/her pursuit of the divine. They seem totally inadequate to the subject. The Kabbalist Rabbi Eliezar ben Judah, of Worms (d. 1230), wrote:

"Everything is in Thee, and Thou art in everything. Thou fillest everything and dost encompass it, when everything was created. Thou was in everything, before everything was created. Thou was everything."

The dogmatist screams "Pantheism!"

Karen Armstrong notes "Unlike dogmatic religion, which lends itself to sectarian disputes, mysticism often claims that there are as many roads to God as there are people. Sufism in particular would evolve an outstanding appreciation of the faith of others." We are like the blind men and the elephant, each thinking the whole beast is like that part which he feels. One Sufi said, “There is no God but Allah, and Jesus is his prophet.”

In the words of Leon Bloy, "The words of those who love God are like the tears of blind lions seeking springs in the desert." Dogmas have their usefulness if they are seen as inadequate constructs of the human mind, rather than as statements of ultimate reality. The dogmas developed in a certain religious culture may be adequate for that culture, but it should be remembered that other cultures have their own ways and their own beliefs, which may be just as adequate for them.

The "hesychasts" (quiet ones) of the Eastern Church sought an intuitive union with the divine, often using icons as foci of contemplation. Gregory of Nyssa wrote "every concept grasped by the mind becomes an obstacle in the quest of those who search." "Intuition" means "inner teaching," and this reflects the fact, that one searches within for union. The paradox is that one must overcome, or transcend, Ego, and yet at the same time, seek to be in touch with one's deepest self. Augustine saw self-knowledge as indispensable to the knowledge of God. The Sufis had an axiom: "He who knows himself, knows his Lord."

Sufis practices fasting, night vigils, and chanting the Divine Names. In this, they were colleagues of both Christian and Buddhists monks. God is at heart utter simplicity and oneness, but there are as many paths to him as there are rays of the sun. When he died, Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk, was visiting a Buddhist monastery.

 

[Dondi]

My thesis, baldly stated, is that dogma divides; mysticism unites. Or to put it less baldly, dogma is the scaffolding of religion, to be removed once the building is complete. Or perhaps, to switch the analogy and its import, the scales that musicians learn, only to be forgotten, absorbed, or transcended when a certain level of mastery is achieved.

Interesting. I kinda feel that was what Christ was trying to do. There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. There were all these elaborate rituals and observances, and corrective measures. All these things held in the strict observance of the Law. It served the purpose of ingraining the Israel with a sense of the seriousness of sin and vigorously trained them to follow God's commands, which very often they failed.

But Jesus took all that and summed the Law and the Prophets into just two commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". He released the scaffolding that held the Law and the Prophets together by giving us a righteousness that is not our own, but God's in the form of His Spirit, which dwells within us, according to the Christian faith. Galatians 5:22-25 says:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

 

[Jeannot]

Interesting. I kinda feel that was what Christ was trying to do. There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. There were all these elaborate rituals and observances, and corrective measures. All these things held in the strict observance of the Law. It served the purpose of ingraining the Israel with a sense of the seriousness of sin and vigorously trained them to follow God's commands, which very often they failed.

But Jesus took all that and summed the Law and the Prophets into just two commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". He released the scaffolding that held the Law and the Prophets together by giving us a righteousness that is not our own, but God's in the form of His Spirit, which dwells within us, according to the Christian faith. Galatians 5:22-25 says:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

Once again, I agree. But note that in LUke 10, it is the scribe who quote the "Duologue." So this was probably a common formula in Pharasaic Judaism.

 

[wil]

Interesting. I kinda feel that was what Christ was trying to do. There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament....Jesus took all that and summed the Law and the Prophets into just two commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". ...

Jesus was asked which was the most important commandment. And out of the 613 he picked two instead of one. These are not new commandments, the first is the biggest commandment of the Jewish faith, even though it didn't make Moses' top ten list..

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

God is at heart utter simplicity and oneness, but there are as many paths to him as there are rays of the sun.

I am entirely in agreement with you Jeannot. God is One, the nearer we get to the heart of God the more we become one with each other and with God.

 

[Dondi]

Jesus was asked which was the most important commandment. And out of the 613 he picked two instead of one. These are not new commandments, the first is the biggest commandment of the Jewish faith, even though it didn't make Moses' top ten list..

Never said that they were new commandments. But the fact that Jesus said that "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" brings them to a higher level than all the rest, for they encompass all the rest. they represent the spirit of the Law.

 

[Dondi]

Once again, I agree. But note that in LUke 10, it is the scribe who quote the "Duologue." So this was probably a common formula in Pharasaic Judaism.

Agreed. As I posted above, these were not new commandments.

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." - Luke 10:25-28

In regards to the lawyer, this is in answer to his question concerning eternal life. Brillantly, the lawyer recognize the purpose of the commandments, and Jesus acknowledge that in answer to the eternal life question.

How differently do we find the rich young ruler's reply:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:16-24

Same question, very different results.

The rich man's problem wasn't that he wasn't following the commandments, it was how he was following them. He had no spirit in doing so, no love for following them, for if he had, then he wouldn't have been so stingy with his riches. Jesus knew this and recognized he had this lack. Interestingly, the lawyer just called Jesus "Master", while the rich man called Jesus "Good Master", which Jesus rebuked. Why?

 

[wil]

Never said that they were new commandments. But the fact that Jesus said that "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" brings them to a higher level than all the rest, for they encompass all the rest. they represent the spirit of the Law.

I agree, but also it seems to me he was being tested...and he answered correctly as a Jew...he didn't elevate these two, they both were already elevated in the eyes of the rabbi and the Jews...I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. Many Christians point to this as some turning point in thinking, but it doesn't appear it was.

 

[Jeannot]

I am entirely in agreement with you Jeannot. God is One, the nearer we get to the heart of God the more we become one with each other and with God.

Yes. Here's a meditation on that point:

BY LOVE POSSESSED – Love and Faith

In giving a "heart" to Tinman, the Wizard of Oz says, "Remember, my sentimental friend, that a heart is judged by, not how much it loves, but by how much it is loved."

St Francis of Assissi, OTOH, says, "Lord, grant that I may not so much desire to be loved, as to love; to be understood, as to understand, etc."

I agree with Francis, and think the Wizard got it wrong -- as Glinda also did in the schmaltzy message, "There's no place like home (which is a two-edged sword anyway).

Much of America, tho, seems to agree with the Wizard. And so we have celebrities who seem to live only to bask in the warm glow of love and admiration coming from their fans. But such love, I would submit, is a dead end, and serves only to exalt the Ego. The celebrity doesn't even want to know these fans as individuals, let alone return the love on a personal basis.

We don't always, or even usually, have control over how much we are loved, but we may have some control over how much we love. It is idle to worry about things we have no control over. Nor can we wait until we find a person worthy to be loved. If we wait to find perfect people, we will never love.

"You shall love your crooked neighbor
With your crooked heart." – WH Auden.

According to Matthew, Jesus said, "You have heard it was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors and traitors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." (Matt 5:43-48)

Whoever Jesus was, and however many layers of myth stand between us and him, this message stands out. We are urged by this unique Jew to be not like the traitors and the Gentiles, but like our father in heaven.

Paul and James did not always get along, but on one thing they seem to agree, that (in the words of James) faith without the works of love is dead. Paul's version was that even tho he had faith enough to move mountains, yet if he didn't have love, he was nothing. Love trumps faith.

Or to put it another way, faith should act in the service of love. That is, we must believe that love is the reflection of God, for, as John tells us, God is love. Love is our lifelong vocation.

It is not necessary to believe that the bible is inerrant, or that Jesus is himself God in order to follow him and his message. Albert Schweitzer, for example, was one of the German "higher critics," i.e., one of those who debunked the doctrine of inerrancy. Schweitzer even believed that Jesus failed to understand his vocation. Despite this, he became a follower of Jesus. He studied medicine in order that he might go into the African jungle to serve his sick and suffering fellow humans.

Of Jesus, Schweitzer wrote,

"He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."

Schweitzer was a Mensch.

And so was Soren Kierkegaard, that aberrant Danish Lutheran who wrote PURITY OF HEART IS TO WILL ONE THING. Or, as Jesus said, One thing alone is necessary. And that thing is undying love, no matter what the cost.

Flannery O’Connor wrote that God’s love “exists only to be itself, imperious and all-demanding.”

 

[Dondi]

I agree, but also it seems to me he was being tested...and he answered correctly as a Jew...he didn't elevate these two, they both were already elevated in the eyes of the rabbi and the Jews...I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. Many Christians point to this as some turning point in thinking, but it doesn't appear it was.

But isn't it interesting that when the lawyer asks, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which puts a dark light on the Levite and the priest.

Not only that, but how many times did Jesus ride the Pharisees and scribes for their traditional, self-righteous, and legalistic teachings, like in Matt. 23, (just after Jesus answered the question on the greatest commandment), with a series of "Woes".

Did not Jesus say:

"...That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Matt 5:20 ?

Seems the scribes and Pharisees missed the point also.

 

[taijasi]

The mystic, of course, sees the dogmas as shackles in his/her pursuit of the divine. They seem totally inadequate to the subject.

Dogmatism is to doctrine, as ego is to your aforementioned Spirit!

Gregory of Nyssa wrote "every concept grasped by the mind becomes an obstacle in the quest of those who search."

H.P. Blavatsky, a Russian esotericist of the 19th Century, tells us that, "Mind is the great slayer of the Real."

The Sufis had an axiom: "He who knows himself, knows his Lord."

Amen!

God is at heart utter simplicity and oneness, but there are as many paths to him as there are rays of the sun.

And again, AMEN!

Namaskar,

taijasi

 

[Jeannot]

But isn't it interesting that when the lawyer asks, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which puts a dark light on the Levite and the priest.

Not only that, but how many times did Jesus ride the Pharisees and scribes for their traditional, self-righteous, and legalistic teachings, like in Matt. 23, (just after Jesus answered the question on the greatest commandment), with a series of "Woes".

Did not Jesus say:

"...That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Matt 5:20 ?

Seems the scribes and Pharisees missed the point also.

But in Matt 23:1-3 he also told his disciples to listen to the scribes and Pharisees and follow their teaching.

 

[Dondi]

But in Matt 23:1-3 he also told his disciples to listen to the scribes and Pharisees and follow their teaching.

Actually, Jesus was telling them to obey whatever the scribes and the Pharisee tell them to do, and not rebel, for their authority is ordained by God. Paul touches upon this in Romans 13:1-2:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

(Which is why we should support the leaders of our country even if we don't agree with them. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. Why also we should support the troops, though we don't agree with the war.)

But the scribes and Pharisees were also bringing people down by their hypocracy. They weren't living what they taught, just like the rich ruler wasn't in the Matt. 19.
And they were a danger to those to whom they taught. Look at verse 13:

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

 

[Jeannot]

Dogmatism is to doctrine, as ego is to your aforementioned Spirit!

H.P. Blavatsky, a Russian esotericist of the 19th Century, tells us that, "Mind is the great slayer of the Real."

Amen!

And again, AMEN!

Namaskar,

taijasi

Maybe the problem is the very project of definition. To define is to set limits. How can you do that with God or Spirit--or for that matter, the ways to them?

And people's attempts to do so are fraught with danger. There will always be some who say, You must agree with me or I will kill you. IOW, and idea in my head is worth more than your life.

 

[Jeannot]

Actually, Jesus was telling them to obey whatever the scribes and the Pharisee tell them to do, and not rebel, for their authority is ordained by God. Paul touches upon this in Romans 13:1-2:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

(Which is why we should support the leaders of our country even if we don't agree with them. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. Why also we should support the troops, though we don't agree with the war.)

But the scribes and Pharisees were also bringing people down by their hypocracy. They weren't living what they taught, just like the rich ruler wasn't in the Matt. 19.
And they were a danger to those to whom they taught. Look at verse 13:

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Do as they say but not as they do!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

My thesis, baldly stated, is that dogma divides; mysticism unites. Or to put it less baldly, dogma is the scaffolding of religion, to be removed once the building is complete. Or perhaps, to switch the analogy and its import, the scales that musicians learn, only to be forgotten, absorbed, or transcended when a certain level of mastery is achieved.

So, what happens after I kill the Buddha? What do I do after I realize that all these constructs have no independent life of their own? That they're just toys and model trains to be played with until I get bored. Then what's left besides a sort of enlightened neo-epicureanism?

Is this why the masters always have that goofy look on their faces?

Chris