Spirit vs. Soul

[Pegg]

Greetings,

The notions of 'soul' and 'spirit' are sometimes used interchangeably, but many religions also discern between them. I don't grasp at any particular theological beliefs, but sometimes feel that the Spirit may be something different from theology.

So what are the differences between the spirit and the soul? Is there any consensus on these matters whatsoever? Can they be tested somehow to determine their nature and purposes?

Thanks,

~SD

in the language the bible was written in, Soul (nephesh) is the living person or animal.

Spirit (ruach) is the breath or lifeforce of the living person or animal.

the difference between the two are that one is the physical flesh, the other is the force animating the flesh.

When a person or animal dies, the flesh is still here for a while, but the lifeforce, which is evidenced by the breath, is gone...and so the soul begins to disintegrate until it too is gone.

 

[Straw Dog]

Add 'what' to all the things, and the matter will be resolved. What I, what walk, what neighbor, what stay, what home, what we, what God, what ask, what us, what it, what who, what admit, what taking, etc. That is the scale of illusion.

Still confused. How does it resolve anything?

What takes responsibility?

 

[Straw Dog]

This is the sort of thing that arises when you cling to a bias towards "oneness," imo. Bias distorts ones perception of reality.

Not one, not two.

Then again, that's probably just my own bias.

 

[Straw Dog]

As an animist, I don't really make a distinction between spirit or soul. There is an animating force inside of us that continues on after the physical functions cease. There is that same animating force within all things. Call it spirit or soul, I doesn't matter. It is not of supernatural origin. It is a naturally existing phenomena and an unknown to science.

Interesting. Could the animating force be the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force) working in harmony? Or is it something else just unique to organisms?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Interesting. Could the animating force be the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force) working in harmony? Or is it something else just unique to organisms?

It is indeed those underlying fundamental forces of nature working together. Those forces are both ceaseless and formless. If our own consciousness is derived from those forces which are formless, then perhaps some part of our consciousness is also ceaseless. Either way, what we animists call "spirit" or what shamans call spirit, or what the Hindus call Brahman is real, naturally existing, and it is all around us. It is the forces of nature. Even our most primitive animistic ancestors believed there was some spirit or force which resided in all things and caused all things to move and change form and affect their daily lives...something which connected all things They were actually right and science has in fact proven this to be true. It was the closeness by which they interacted with nature that our primitive ancestors understood this. Science also interacts very closely with nature and those natural forces. Hinduism being probably the oldest religion also shares this understanding. Even though the names are different, the understanding is the same. Look to the oldest and you will find the answers, then look to science and you will see they work as one and share a common bond which is a deep understanding of nature. This is because as time progressed, religions and spiritual beliefs began to stray away from that connectedness with nature towards something more supernatural. The supernatural is just that...not natural, therefore not existing in nature.


---

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How is the ego artificially made? From what?

What makes the soul god-given, but not the ego?

The ego is how you appear to be your character, the soul is the illusional of a you.

If I take a walk and my neighbor stays at their home, did we both take a walk or did we both stay home since we are both God? If you asked us about it, who should admit to taking the walk? Who should admit to staying home?

It gets trickier whenever we bring ethical considerations into it. Can I take something from my neighbor's home because I believe it's mine? It's not my fault that he doesn't realize we're god because I don't discern differences between people. It seems that having a valid sense of self is neccessary in order to assume personal responsibility for particular actions.

Would this be what you mean by soul or ego?

The illusion of difference brings forth this.

Let's say there is a community which runs solely on private ownership, and all of the sudden it is going to change to a purely communist system. The concept would be: "There is no property, all things are shared." Due to an illusion of property people would think otherwise, people would be used to claiming land, claiming houses, etc. The illusion of ownership gotten so caught up in society that people can't tell the difference.

So it's sort of like that. It's not exactly noticeable, in fact it'd be incredibly difficult for any regular man to become aware of the lack of separation, become aware that there are no individuals, alongside this realization comes disillusionment.

First; what is you? What is your neighbor? What's the difference other than what we recognize, or personally define as an individual? The gathering of all of your atoms (the shell or body) cannot be you because the atoms do not remain gathered. The gathering of your emotions cannot be you because they change. The gathering of your memories cannot be you, otherwise you'd be a different person when you have amnesia. Etc. There is no you particularly defined, all concepts of an individual (all invented by man, by the way) are not well thought through because they are not constants, you'd never be the same individual.

Individualhood is an illusion resulting from a system, much like the illusion of property.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You say that your (one's) nature is God. You say that "all is God and never separate. You are God, and your neighbors are God".

So how can anything be "artificial" ? How can there be a difference between "god-given" and "socially modified" if everyone is God and never separate ? If everyone is God, then society (people who are God) is God, surely. Who or what else could it be ?

How could a world which is all God have some parts which are real and some which are illusion ?

Whose "illusion" is it, if there is only God ?

Good question.

I was speaking in terms of the individualhood as we all know and love very well, including me who has not become disillusioned (it's my goal, and it's more than just knowing, it's a feeling, altered state of presence, the end of individualhood is the end of rebirth).

God is All is a more favored saying to me than All is God, because God is all together, and when separated, there is a distance (a distance according to the one illusioned, as God is never separated beyond the psyche).

There are two realities; the objective reality and the subjective reality. The subjective reality depends entirely on the illusion, while the illusion entirely depends on the subjective reality. It is an endless circle that allows for the existence of an individual, a separation, but a purely fictional existence at that. While purely fictional, it is still created and still perceives itself realistically (but really is only in the subjective reality)

 

[Straw Dog]

The illusion of difference brings forth this.

Let's say there is a community which runs solely on private ownership, and all of the sudden it is going to change to a purely communist system. The concept would be: "There is no property, all things are shared." Due to an illusion of property people would think otherwise, people would be used to claiming land, claiming houses, etc. The illusion of ownership gotten so caught up in society that people can't tell the difference.

Thanks for playing along. This topic may be quite illuminating.

So the concept of communism is not an illusion, but the concept of private property is? Aren't they both just equally conceptual?

So it's sort of like that. It's not exactly noticeable, in fact it'd be incredibly difficult for any regular man to become aware of the lack of separation, become aware that there are no individuals, alongside this realization comes disillusionment.

First; what is you? What is your neighbor? What's the difference other than what we recognize, or personally define as an individual? The gathering of all of your atoms (the shell or body) cannot be you because the atoms do not remain gathered. The gathering of your emotions cannot be you because they change. The gathering of your memories cannot be you, otherwise you'd be a different person when you have amnesia. Etc. There is no you particularly defined, all concepts of an individual (all invented by man, by the way) are not well thought through because they are not constants, you'd never be the same individual.

Just because something is not static doesn't mean that it is not useful or meant to be within a particular dynamic context. I agree that the culturally conditioned ego identity is not well thought out and benefits much from deconstruction.

Individualhood is an illusion resulting from a system, much like the illusion of property.

Do you believe in taking personal responsibility for your actions? Or do you just point your finger at the system and shift it away from you? What is taking responsibility?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Thanks for playing along. This topic may be quite illuminating.

So the concept of communism is not an illusion, but the concept of private property is? Aren't they both just equally conceptual?

The systems are both equally illusions in the fact they are a set organization. All systems of organizations are based on illusion; much like how the value in money, parliament, etc. is an illusion meant to construct the illusional reality we live in, for nobody can bear the real one.

Private ownership is an illusion to support an easier, ideally organized reality.

Just because something is not static doesn't mean that it is not useful or meant to be within a particular dynamic context. I agree that the culturally conditioned ego identity is not well thought out and benefits much from deconstruction.

I never did say it wasn't useful. I do believe it's useful to become disillusioned though...

Do you believe in taking personal responsibility for your actions? Or do you just point your finger at the system and shift it away from you? What is taking responsibility?

Yes personally responsibility is important. I'm not at all against the inevitable perspective from the illusion of individuality.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes personally responsibility is important. I'm not at all against the inevitable perspective from the illusion of individuality.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your views a little better now. I'm just not sure that 'illusion' is the right word in this context. Although, perhaps I'm referring more to independence or freedom rather than individuality as in a total seperation from others.

 

[Straw Dog]

It is indeed those underlying fundamental forces of nature working together. Those forces are both ceaseless and formless. If our own consciousness is derived from those forces which are formless, then perhaps some part of our consciousness is also ceaseless. Either way, what we animists call "spirit" or what shamans call spirit, or what the Hindus call Brahman is real, naturally existing, and it is all around us. It is the forces of nature. Even our most primitive animistic ancestors believed there was some spirit or force which resided in all things and caused all things to move and change form and affect their daily lives...something which connected all things They were actually right and science has in fact proven this to be true. It was the closeness by which they interacted with nature that our primitive ancestors understood this. Science also interacts very closely with nature and those natural forces. Hinduism being probably the oldest religion also shares this understanding. Even though the names are different, the understanding is the same. Look to the oldest and you will find the answers, then look to science and you will see they work as one and share a common bond which is a deep understanding of nature. This is because as time progressed, religions and spiritual beliefs began to stray away from that connectedness with nature towards something more supernatural. The supernatural is just that...not natural, therefore not existing in nature.


---

Yes, there does seem to be some similiarities between different beliefs and scientific understanding. However, I'm wary of jumping to definitive conclusions as most people do to justify their belief systems because I'm also aware that the human mind tends to create patterns where none actually exist upon closer investigation. Personally, I tend to view human consciousness as relational rather than essential.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, there does seem to be some similiarities between different beliefs and scientific understanding. However, I'm wary of jumping to definitive conclusions as most people do to justify their belief systems because I'm also aware that the human mind tends to create patterns where none actually exist upon closer investigation. Personally, I tend to view human consciousness as relational rather than essential.

That is fine, I can understand that. I did not however, jump to this conclusion without any forethought. I came to my own conclusions based on what I observed in nature and what science was able to tell me. I put two and two together and found something that worked for me. It is not for everyone. You are right, human consciousness is not essesntial. What is essential are those underlying fundamental forces of nature. It is through those forces that we have matter, life, or consciousness to begin with. It is those forces that I consider the "spirit" or Animating Factor as I call it in all things that exist. Consciousness is dervative of those forces. If such things as ghosts actually do exist, their forms are not composed entirely of consciousness. Their forms or manifestations would in theory be composed of the same fundamental forces as everything else, but perhaps a remant or shed of conscious activiy clings to those forms like a memory of sorts.

 

[Straw Dog]

That is fine, I can understand that. I did not however, jump to this conclusion without any forethought. I came to my own conclusions based on what I observed in nature and what science was able to tell me. I put two and two together and found something that worked for me. It is not for everyone. You are right, human consciousness is not essesntial. What is essential are those underlying fundamental forces of nature. It is through those forces that we have matter, life, or consciousness to begin with. It is those forces that I consider the "spirit" or Animating Factor as I call it in all things that exist. Consciousness is dervative of those forces. If such things as ghosts actually do exist, their forms are not composed entirely of consciousness. Their forms or manifestations would in theory be composed of the same fundamental forces as everything else, but perhaps a remant or shed of conscious activiy clings to those forms like a memory of sorts.

Cool beans. I should be more careful about generalizing as I'm sure a fair amount of people really do try to investigate their views.

I actually do think animism makes a certain kind of sense, all things considered.

 

[Tumah]

I'm sure the answers will vary depending on the theologies and philosophies of the various respondants.

For me, at least, "spirit" and "soul" are two elements of the same phenomenon. Or at least, ruach and neshamah, which are essentially the Hebrew equivalents of the terms. I hold by a variation in the Kabbalistic idea that what we usually term "soul" is a phenomenon comprised of the agglomeration of several "levels" of spiritual and divine energy, among which is one we call ruach ("spirit") and one of we call neshamah ("soul").

I wonder, what made you go with neshamah instead of nefesh?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your views a little better now. I'm just not sure that 'illusion' is the right word in this context. Although, perhaps I'm referring more to independence or freedom rather than individuality as in a total seperation from others.

I think it fits.

In my belief, it is a truth that if you point at anything you can trace it back to the same origin (which I do not claim to have any knowledge of). We are part of the same reality. Often times this helps people get a clearer understanding of my monism: You are the X*, he is the X, and all are the X. This goes for all things, living or non-living.

The greatest thing that can ever exist is reality as a whole (Absolute Reality, or God), no matter the value system, as reality as a whole is a working system supporting itself, all things that exists (that it persists of) add up their value (which is subjective) and equate to the greatest value.

You see, you can't be different than the reality you exist in, we are all a 'part' of it. But what indicates these parts? Why separate ourselves? It's only an idea to think that I am my shell or collection of atoms, or my individual soul. My shell is part of the universe, it is made of the same materials that helped create it, the same materials that preserve it, and the same materials that will end it. Everything is the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer all in One.

It's an old saying but I find it useful; "The shell returns to dust"

 

[Straw Dog]

I think it fits.

In my belief, it is a truth that if you point at anything you can trace it back to the same origin (which I do not claim to have any knowledge of). We are part of the same reality. Often times this helps people get a clearer understanding of my monism: You are the X*, he is the X, and all are the X. This goes for all things, living or non-living.

Your monism is poetic, but how useful is it? Can you give an example of how monism is directly applied to informing your experience? How does it help with anything?

I'm thinking now that individual awareness is a natural result of entropy. Nature tends toward diversity. It's a mistake to try crawling back to the womb or the singularity. There's nowhere to go but forward.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nobody is stopping you to go forward, but remember from where we started, South East Africa, they say.

 

[Straw Dog]

Nobody is stopping you to go forward, but remember from where we started, South East Africa, they say.

Oh, right. Thanks for reminding me. It is important to remember where we came from in order to see where we are going. We must understand the cause to determine the effect.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Your monism is poetic, but how useful is it? Can you give an example of how monism is directly applied to informing your experience? How does it help with anything?

Do all things have to be applied to something? But if anything, it could definitely, but does not necessarily, lead to the philosophies of karma, treating others as yourself, and simply a better view and mental connection with the universe. I definitely noticed the last one.

I'm thinking now that individual awareness is a natural result of entropy. Nature tends toward diversity. It's a mistake to try crawling back to the womb or the singularity. There's nowhere to go but forward.

Why go forward into the increasing separation delusion? Why narrow everything down when you can keep in mind that you are the flow and it'd be easier just to flow with it?

 

[Straw Dog]

Do all things have to be applied to something? But if anything, it could definitely, but does not necessarily, lead to the philosophies of karma, treating others as yourself, and simply a better view and mental connection with the universe. I definitely noticed the last one.

I can see how that might help.

Personally, I feel a strong connection to the universe through realizing independence. In this manner, I learn to respect my neighbor as sovereign in his own way and worthy of being treated as equal.

Why go forward into the increasing separation delusion? Why narrow everything down when you can keep in mind that you are the flow and it'd be easier just to flow with it?

Because the flow tends toward original transformations and diversity. The spirit chooses to be mortal. This doesn't necessarily mean its become delusional. It simply desires to experience independence.