What's new

Does 'Spirit' exist?

Does 'Spirit' exist

  • Yes! Theta for the win!

    Votes: 46 61.3%
  • No! Man from mud FTW.

    Votes: 13 17.3%
  • Lol....wut?

    Votes: 16 21.3%

  • Total voters
    75

Div6

Crusader
Is there such a thing as 'theta', 'elan vital', etc. Or is it all atoms and molecules?
 

Nomad

Patron with Honors
I think it is clear that there is a "spiritual" aspect of the universe that relates to how we interact in the universe (our identity is more than just the chemical reactions in our brain). To someone willing to accept that as a possibility, there is ample evidence, someone who does not accept that as a possibility will not be able to accept the evidence, as it doesn't follow the rules of the physical universe.

I think Hubbard had some things right about how this works (likely all/mostly "borrowed" for others) but also had a number of things wrong.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
:clap: Of course, you know what my answer will be.:clap:

I have the opinion that there is an invisible something from which all else derives. It is fundamantal and of the nature of First Cause. It is the source of all awareness, and of all creativity, from the tippy top to the very lowest bottom.

Just as a mention, I began this life as a rigid agnostic. My first philosophy paper in college was on "How Man Created The Idea Of God To Deal With The Pain & Suffering Of Life". I saw all things religious and spiritual as entirely absurd.

Then when I was about 20 years old, I noticed that I had this severe bias against all things religious and spiritual. "Mmm, that's interesting. What is THAT all about". I have always had a tendency to question things in myself - attitudes, biases, ideas, opinions, beliefs, intentions, etc.

So I started reading, studying and experimenting. First, I saw that many very intelligent people examined and discussed similar spiritual ideas very seriously. THAT was interesting. And the more I dug in, the more I saw. But especially, the more I experimented, the more I experienced. Though, even with many amazing experiences, I still refused to ever become a "believer" of anything. Nothing seemed to explain it all, not well enough for me, and everything I did look at had some problems with it in some way. Scientology was a step along the way. Even when in it, I could never call myself a "Scientologist". Even as a member of the Sea Org, I just couldn't do it. Defining oneself seemed so limiting and disingenuous - to me.

At this point, it seems more likely to me than not that there is a substantial invisible "something" underlying everything else. Since I have experienced exterior with full perception outside the body, and I was "aware" just fine, the idea of consciousness as a result of chemical reactions in the brain doesn't hold much water for me.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Is there such a thing as 'theta', 'elan vital', etc. Or is it all atoms and molecules?

There are things to observe.
There are patterns among things to observe.
There are patterns among patterns among things to observe.
There are patterns among patterns among patterns among things to observe.
Ultimately, there is "unknown."
And you missed that in your poll.

"Spiritual" is the pattern at nth degree somewhere in there.

.
 

ExVet

Patron with Honors
"Theta" as a generalized life force = no

"Spirits" = yes

God = yes (unlike scientology)
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Of course it exists. Spirit is that which animates the collection of substances that make up an "alive" organisim: plant, animal, human -- whatever.

When "spirit" departs, the "dead" thing that is left is appropriately called "the remains."
 

finishedman

Patron with Honors
“Does spirit exist?”

Your question is not correct. What is there in the spirit of man (or in the one you consider to be spiritual)? What do you think there is? You must ask that question. Whatever you have known about it is all that presents itself as an answer. That’s what you will experience. There is nothing besides that.

How do questions like this formulate themselves in you.? You cannot ask a question about something you don’t already know about … so you either want to confirm your suspicions or you are not satisfied with all the answers.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
“Does spirit exist?”

Your question is not correct. What is there in the spirit of man (or in the one you consider to be spiritual)? What do you think there is? You must ask that question. Whatever you have known about it is all that presents itself as an answer. That’s what you will experience. There is nothing besides that.

How do questions like this formulate themselves in you.? You cannot ask a question about something you don’t already know about … so you either want to confirm your suspicions or you are not satisfied with all the answers.

FM, TR3 here:

ANSWER THE QUESTION! :omg: What an idea!!!!!

Don't you just love people who answer a question with another question?
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Intelligence, conciouseness, self awareness.. That's 'spirit' as far as I'm concerned. It is 'spirit' even if it is a phenomenon brought about by a meat brain supplied with a blood flow, and to wink right out of existence upon death...

That's spirit.. And it's awesome!

In fact, I don't see it being more awesome if 'spirit' exists outside of a working brain..

It's a very interesting question.. Dunno if it's important though..

Hmm... This stuff always makes me think of the 'Obscene Dog'! - Strange.. Hubbard is mans best friend? - He wrote books about that question!

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." [ Groucho Marx ]

:yes:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Intelligence, conciouseness, self awareness.. That's 'spirit' as far as I'm concerned. It is 'spirit' even if it is a phenomenon brought about by a meat brain supplied with a blood flow, and to wink right out of existence upon death...

That's spirit.. And it's awesome!

In fact, I don't see it being more awesome if 'spirit' exists outside of a working brain..

It's a very interesting question.. Dunno if it's important though..

Hmm... This stuff always makes me think of the 'Obscene Dog'! - Strange.. Hubbard is mans best friend? - He wrote books about that question!

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." [ Groucho Marx ]

:yes:

Great points. If one examines consciousness and awareness solely from a viewpoint of FUNCTION, all the theories become useless. In the end, who cares where it comes from.

Buddha amazingly pushed a similar view. Buddha's original approach was much more psychological than religious. He said to let ALL ideas about everthing just GO AWAY. Just drop them all. Forget about all explanations, theories, and beliefs. Just learn to be there with and examine what goes on within yourself. Begin to and learn to examine consciousness on the level of consciousness, not "through" belief systems, ideas and other mental gimmickry (LRH's "vias").

Buddha basically said that until you can DO THAT, that you will never be able to see what might actually be there (if anything). But first, one must strip away all the layers and layers of mentally self-created nonsense (including the beliefs and ideas about "awareness", "spirit", "God", etc.). When it comes to doing a mental housecleaning, Buddha's methods involved an equal-opportunity vacuum cleaner! Throw it ALL in the garbage!

To get a good laugh, from a guy who actually viewed spirituality and the "search" in ways not too far different than Groucho Marx might have, read about U.G. Krishnamurti (the "other" Krishnamurti). See:

http://ug-k.blogspot.com/

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/u_g_krishnamurti.htm

He is the most irreverant "spiritual leader" I have ever come into contact with - and he IS refreshing!
 
Last edited:

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
I find your survey is too limited in it's scope. It also encourages one to vote for 'spiritual' in the sci angle.

Some of the questions that can be considered regarding this are numerous but some that appear often are:

'Does the spirit exist?'

'Is spirit (whatever one conceives that to be) our *true* nature?'

"Do you consider that your spiritual self is dominant over and or is the source over life itself?'

There are numerous answers to these (Or other) questions and considerations regarding the experience of life.

I'll answer for myself:

Life is about discovering, partaking and creating; when it's various aspects are adequately understood, respected and created with in as harmonious a way as possible... it can be a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.

Of course every now and then one has to get out the scathe and wack some of the weeds.:wink2:

To consider that the physical universe is but 'the mud' without 'spiritual infusion' is naive and lacks adequate observation.

I find myself in an intimate and inseparable relationship with my consciousness, my thoughts, my body, other people and the vast world and universes: all connected and interdependant as creation fulfilling itself.

The glue or 'source point' is conciousness. Is that 'God' or 'Spirit' or 'The Creator'? I don't know and 'Quite frankly my Dear, I don't give a damm' :coolwink: .

IMO, any conceivable consideration of those proposed concepts or answers to those questions may be interesting to think or talk about, possibly helpful for awhile if one has found themselves in a rut and lost their zeal for creativity and love in life... but as a permanently dominate pursuit- they are unnecessary vias. What one is attempting to understand by formulating a concept of 'spirit'... one already has, is and is involved in the creation of. It's the whole package moving forward together that is key; attempting (because that's all one is doing... attempting) to segrege oneself from any main part of creation will end in failure and self limitation.

I don't find it to be of any use to attempt a psychological 'coup d'etat' in the hopes of considering or realizing an 'immortal', 'spiritually dominant' or 'independently powerful' existence.


But then again, I'm just an ex-sci... so what the fuck do I know? :)







Is there such a thing as 'theta', 'elan vital', etc. Or is it all atoms and molecules?
 
Last edited:
We've got spirit, yes we do, we've got spirit, how about you?

O.K. This is a tiny sampling, but it looks like yes, we are still a community of believers...in something. :p

Spiritually yours, SweetnessandLight
 

Gadfly

Crusader
:bow: NAMASTE! :bow:

Namaste represents the belief that there is a Divine spark within each of us. It is an acknowledgment of the soul in one by the soul in another. "Nama" means bow, "as" means I, and "te" means you. Therefore, Namaste literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you."

Also:

"I bow to that inherent in you" ("That" refers to divinity, or that which is divine')

"I respect divinity within you that is also within me." (Here, "that" refers to divinity, or that which is divine.)

"The light within me honors the light within you." (in yoga)
:party: :hifive: :love8: :heartflower: :dance2:

It's a pretty cool idea actually, and even if "not true", the idea empowers people and if applied seriously, could change the world. In a sense, accepting the idea as true leads to better results than taking the view that "we are all mud". In a certain sense, it could be "pragmatic" to take the view that spirit is basic and in us all (in the very same way). Even if it weren't true at all! Recognizing some imaginary "divine" in each other, along with the respect and honor that implies, seems to me better than recognizing some imaginary "mudness". Imagine if a Jew and an Arab could do that with and to each other? If a right wing Christian could do that with a left-wing liberal? And so forth. The view eradicates all false divisions. The top common trait is viewed as "our shared divinity".
 
Last edited:

finishedman

Patron with Honors
Let's see ... first there's your notion that 'self' and all of its mind limitations must be eliminated. The various frames of knowledge presented here about 'spirit' is part of what forms that 'self', that 'mind.' So we eliminate all of that and there is no 'spirit.' Without the knowledge, without the 'mind,' without the 'self,' you have no way of finding out what you are left with.
 
FM, TR3 here:

ANSWER THE QUESTION! :omg: What an idea!!!!!

Don't you just love people who answer a question with another question?


Yes, but don't you just love people who ask questions as to whether or not something exists without defining the term. It does matter when the term means many things to many people and nothing to some. It's an invitation to a waffle-fest.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Yes, but don't you just love people who ask questions as to whether or not something exists without defining the term. It does matter when the term means many things to many people and nothing to some. It's an invitation to a waffle-fest.

I do agree that the question posed in this thread requires extensive qualification. The way the question was framed was too simple, and "loaded" in each direction. I almost chose "Lol....wut?", because while I am more aligned with the first chose, it is entirely unacceptable to me as given.
 
Last edited:
I do agree that the question posed in this thread requires extensive qualification. The way the question was framed was too simple, and "loaded" in each direction. I almost chose "Lol....wut?", because while I am more aligned with the first chose, it is entirely unacceptable to me as given.

The question "What does the term 'spirit' mean, or signify?" is better, or actually necessary with such a loaded term. And that's the question people are answering mostly because they have to give that info in order not to be construed as having the same ideas as others. Another question which i am interested in personally, is: "Is there another word which captures what you mean by the word "spirit" and is less ambiguous and needs less clarification?
I don't like words that mean anything and everything to everybody.
 
Top