But when I think of spirit, am I thinking of the 'same' spirit as you? — YuZhonglu
23. What is spirit?
=> "The intelligent principle of the universe."
24. Is spirit synonymous with intelligence?
=> "Intelligence is an essential attribute of spirit, but both merge in a unitary principle, so that, for you, they may be said to be the same thing."
25. Is spirit independent of matter, or is it only one of the pro properties of matter, as colours are a property of light, and as sound is a property of the air?
=> "Spirit and matter are distinct from one another; but the union of spirit and matter is necessary to give intelligent activity to matter."
- Is this union equally necessary to the manifestation of spirit? (We refer, in this question, to the principle of intelligence, abstractly considered, without reference to the individualities designated by that term.)
=> "It is necessary for you, because you are not organised for perceiving spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not formed for that order of perception."
26. Can spirit be conceived of without matter, and matter without spirit?
=> "Undoubtedly, as objects of thought."
THE SPIRITS' BOOK (By Allan Kardec), 1857.
I realise just how precise it is even scientifically. Because everything we infer and refer to through the meaning of intelligence, from consciousness to mind, is arrived at through interaction with matter. So, even intelligence itself is derivative, often as a product of deduction. So, unless we're speaking the same language (terminology and articulation not tongue) there's bound to be misunderstanding.It is necessary for you, because you are not organised for perceiving spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not formed for that order of perception.
Actually we do know when a person is thinking of the color red. — YuZhonglu
I could say that it is our Source, our Soul, our essential Energy — Bodhisattva
Yes, I am assuming the very much established definition of a common word.
I realize I'm pointing out the obvious. You're the one trying to redefine the word. Proving that definition is your job, not mine. — NKBJ
my perso al definition of Spirit is that it is the very essence of who we are as human beings. It is very difficult to articulate this belief in words. I could say that it is our Source, our Soul, our essential Energy. And, as energy never dies, our Spirit never dies. It is strongly connected to our true nature, our character. I had a very strong bond with my late mother. If I need extra courage, for example, I ask her to help me. And I have felt her loving presence very strongly at those times. I would call that her Spirit
But nothing whatsoever to do with "ghosts". I dont believe in all that rubbish. I realise this is all very subjective! It is an interesting question. — Bodhisattva
Thanks for your input, as always. I see your point, and wouldn’t necessarily completely disagree. But... with all due respect, your reply could perhaps come across to some as a little terse, narrow, or cut-and-dried. Most likely unintentional. One would think an answer to that question might be more nuanced. If you could expound upon your answer, that might leaven the bread a bit (so to speak). Your reply to me earlier in this thread was a helpful thumbnail sketch:I could say that it is our Source, our Soul, our essential Energy
— Bodhisattva
I’m afraid that is something that bodhisattvas do not suppose. The hallmark of the bodhisattva path is no essential self. So by all means believe it, but do at least consider changing your forum name. — Wayfarer
actually that quotation you’ve provided on buddhanature does come close to heterodoxy from a Buddhist p.o.v. That’s because the Buddha always denied an unchanging kernel, essence or nature, in distinction from the Brahmin principle of there being a higher self. Buddha-nature refers to an innate capacity or potential for enlightenment, but that is not the same as positing an unchanging essence or self. It’s a subtle but important distinction. (Also important to note that not all Buddhist schools accept or teach in terms of buddha nature - you would rarely if at all find it mentioned in Theravada Buddhism.) — Wayfarer
your reply could perhaps come across to some as a little terse, narrow, or cut-and-dried. — 0 thru 9
To be perhaps overly general.... it appears to me that the crux of the concept is on there not being a permanent, unchanging, and separate self. The relative self could be said to exist, as in “the small self”. A non-absolute self, with a lowercase “s”, always in the state of flux, and interdependent with the rest of life and existence. — 0 thru 9
our culture in general is suffering a scurvy-like disease from the general lack of this “nutrient” — 0 thru 9
All thanks to Google images. :smile: Like the saying goes... leave ‘em laughing, and leave ‘em thinking. With a silly avatar, there is a chance for the former. If one can’t even leave ‘em laughing, then just leave!Nothing to do with the topic, but I like the new avatar. Curiously, for some reason I was just thinking about Wacky Packages yesterday, thinking I need to look for info about them online because I hadn't seen them in so long. And then I see your avatar. ;-) — Terrapin Station
The underlying problem in the Buddhist view is 'objectification' - that we seize upon objects, often in the form of ideas, and say 'this is it!' or 'this is not it!' 'Higher self' is one of those ideas; 'spirit' another. When we name them, we 'make something of them', so to speak. 'Look! That's the important thing to understand!' But that is the process of reification, of making something out of a concept. (A lot of talk about 'God' is exactly like this.)
In this sense, Buddhism is near to some themes found in existentialism. It's not as if there is some 'self-essence' which we have to apprehend somehow; it's rather that there's nothing that can be grasped, and we demonstrate our understanding of that by not grasping at it. So it's actually a stance or a dynamic action - the dynamic of not clinging. That becomes, in Mahayana Buddhist terminology, a skill or a mental competency - the skill of non-attachment. — Wayfarer
Well said. To bring it back to the original question - does the spirit exist? I think the answer I would offer is that it does not exist, but it also does not not exist.
The reason for this is, that to assert the existence of something, is to say that it is this, as opposed to that. In Western philosophy, this became formularised through Cartesian dualism as 'spirit, as distinct from body'. Then this lead to a false conception of the nature of 'spirit', because of the subsequent question of how 'spirit' could relate to 'body' when they're so utterly different (this is the 'ghost in the machine'). It made it a relatively simple matter to then dispose of the notion of spirit altogether, as it couldn't be seen or measured and appeared to make no difference, and to then assume only the reality of 'body', which can indeed be seen and measured - which is precisely the basis of today's scientific materialism. — Wayfarer
Yes. Dividing any whole into parts, and naming them is theoretically an endless process, with arguably diminishing returns. Dissect the golden goose, or not? All things being equal, having scientific data about X is a wonderful thing. But in our relative world, all things are rarely if ever completely equal. How could it be if everything is constantly changing in some way? I’m curious about subatomic particles and space travel. But the skepticism about the amount and priority of such research being militarily useful is difficult to ignore, for one thing. We apply math to the world. Dividing, multiplying, adding, and subtracting this, that, and the other. Which is fine, as long as we can turn off the calculator now and then, and see what happens.But Buddhism subverts this, not by asserting the existence of spirit or any kind of 'immaterial substance' (which is an oxymoron) but by re-examining the process which lead to the division in the first place. But that re-examination is not a matter verbal or a discursive analysis, but of perceiving the way in which the mind and language divides up the world into these conceptual categories. So it takes a kind of meta-cognitive act, by which the mind begins to understand the way in which it construes experience (usually unconsciously) - leading to confusion about meaning, symbol, reality, concept, and so on, in which modern cultural discourse (and we ourselves) finds ourselves enmeshed. — Wayfarer
If you think that ideas are only had by humans and you conclude from that that they cannot be anything other than what we know about them by virtue of having them, you are ruling out the possibility that animals or advanced alien species have ideas. — Janus
They cannot exist apart from cogent beings. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.