![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
As The Spirit Moves You
Just what the hell “spirituality” really means has eluded me for a long, long time. I think I may be finally getting wise to it though. And it’s so simple that it’s almost stupid. Or that is, I’m stupid for not seeing it sooner.
A quick lesson on word origins, courtesy of my favorite online etymology site:
- Spirit - from the Latin spiritus which means “of breathing”
- Ghost - from the Old English gast, meaning “soul, spirit, life, breath.”
- Anima - A word direct from Latin meaning “life, breath” which forms the basis of our words “animal” and “animate” and also factors heavily into Jungian psychology - among other spiritual references as well.
- Pneuma - a Greek word for “breath” which finds its way into Greek versions of the New Testament some 385 times, as well as forms the basis of the Valentinian Gnostic tripartite division of mankind, with the pneumatics, psychics and hylics (of which St. Paul’s “Greeks” and “Jews” are supposed to correlate to pneumatics and psychics, respectively).
- Breath - The word itself which appears in all of the above word origins (see also the Hindu prana)
actually comes from Old English, where it has the dual meaning of “odor, smell” and “exhalation.” Which if you’ve ever breathed through your nose (which I’m assuming you all have), you will recognize as the twin functions of the nose: scent and respiration.
So… uh… does anyone else see a pattern here? Cause I sure as hell do! Spirituality is crystals and unicorns and fairies and - Oh wait! Just kidding.
Seriously though, I don’t think we can just discount the evidence our own language is completely laced with. Why else would spirituality so frequently relate to the word for breath unless - gasp! - spirituality is literally about breath and control of the breath.
That said, I have to admit that I wasn’t able to see this blazingly obvious point by myself. J. Nigro Sansonese’s excellent Body of Myth is what brought it all home for me. But now that it is in the process of being brought home, it’s fun to look around at other people’s understanding of these things and try to discern where the problems arose and where distortions began to occur.
A nice simple entry on Wikipedia gives us a good toe-hold: “Pneuma (πνευμα) is Greek for ‘breath’, which metaphorically describes a non-material being or influence.”
I get what they are saying and want to agree with them, simply because that’s what I’ve always been taught to think about these things: that the breath and “spirit” are linked because spirits are seen as being immaterial, floaty, etc. But if we simply just look at the etymology of the words above, nowhere in them do we find any mention of “metaphors” or anything interpretive. All we find is breath, breath, breath, again and again and again.
A similar but slightly more nuanced Christian interpretation of the various ways in which these words - along with the Hebrew ruach - are used can be found here as well. A passage from that:
This situation reflects a usage of what the Bible’s writers term “spirit.” Spirit is the English translation of the Hebrew ruach, in the Old Testament and the Greek pneuma in the New. It can literally mean “a current of air,” “breath,” “blast,” or “breeze.” However, when used figuratively, it indicates “vital principle,” “disposition,” “the rational soul,” etc., or an invisible super-being such as God, Christ, an angel, or a demon. Whether used literally, as with “wind” or “breath,” or figuratively, as indicating God, angel, or demon, it describes something that is invisible and immaterial and at the same time powerful, even a thing of considerable power. The foremost elements of spirit, then, are invisibility, immateriality, and power.
Which is all very interesting, but is still an intellectualization and interpretation packed on top of the actual words. The actual words themselves are breath, breath, breath, again and again and again. Or if you like Occam’s Razor, we could use that to say that the simpler explanation that fits the data is that they literally meant “breath” when they wrote “breath.” Hmm… but that’s way too complicated, right?
Also from that site comes an elaboration on what’s referred to by the “Word” of God:
In John 6:63, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit [which] gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” Here is a clear example of the figurative use of “spirit.” Words are the symbols used for communication; they are received into our minds through sight, as when reading, or sound, as when hearing. But once in the mind, nothing material is packed into our brain. Words—and thus the concepts they carry with them—are spirit because they are immaterial, invisible, and of considerable power, depending on how we use them. Thus, we can receive “spirit” in the form of words or concepts from a spirit being. In this case, it is in reality “thought transference” because no sound is heard through our ears.
It is again, a very interesting interpretation, but it could be easily argued that this type of interpretation is simply not Biblical (because where is any of the above actually written in the Bible?). If you wanted to apply the conceptual filter we’ve been creating so far in this article (whether it’s wrong or right), there’s an easy way to do so. What is a word, anyway? A word is a breath has been giving a particular shape so that it will create a certain sound. And sound, as you know, travels through the air and reaches our ears and tickles the inside of them with tiny movements of air. In fact, you could almost think of sound then as the ear’s way of breathing, or at least of inhaling. But maybe that’s a bit of a stretch as well… But hey, in the beginning was the Word, right? And the Word was with God and the word was God?
As one parting shot before we go, consider this wonderful passage of Torah exposition by Phyllis Ocean Berman and Arthur Ocean Waskow, which relates to Moses at the burning bush, hearing the voice of his god:
“So what can be my Name for them both to understand? Only the word that is beneath all words, the word that is beyond all words, the word that is within all words, the word that holds all words within it. The word that is not shaped by human hands, or tongue, or lips — but comes from outward in, from inward out. A breath. Only a breath
“My name is YHWH. Do not put in a vowel, Moshe! Do not try to call me Yahweh; not Jehovah; not Adonai, or Lord, or even Eternal. Just Yyyhhhwwwhhh, a breathing.
“I am the breath of life, and the breath of life is what will set you free. Teach them that if they learn that my Name is just a Breathing, they will be able to reach across all tongues and boundaries, to pass over them all for birth, and life, and freedom.”
What else can we possibly say? Just breathe…
- Harner on Spiritual Reality
- He Looked Like Me
- Shamanic Regalia
- The Holy Spirit in Secret
- Ananse, Keeper of Stories
- Prev: Seinfeld’s Lost Episode
- Next: Let the Dead Bury the Dead!
December 19th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Reinterpreting passages from the Bible turns into a fun and very revealing game when you start substituting in the word “breath” in place of “spirit”:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ROM%208&version=49;
Translates out to:
Just one of many examples we could give, which if we wanted to take extremely literally seem to point to a lost Christian technique of BREATHING.
Or the gnostic Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus seems to be talking on two levels here: that life/breath existing in matter is itself a remarkable miracle, but that if the matter then takes control of that breath, then that is the true miracle.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:18 am
See also the gnostic concept of the “indwelling spirit of God” as a reference to the breath…
And the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Holy Breath) become very obviously references to the Siddhis gained through yoga:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2012:4-11;&version=9;
December 19th, 2006 at 4:21 am
JK also pointed out to me:
And:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inspiration
Which I take to mean: that they are - probably without their knowledge - passing on the secret fact that the Bible was written by people who mastered these breath techniques and it is *about* these breath techniques. And that since the techniques are an “infallible” method of connecting to god/spirit, then the text therefore is infallible too.
See also enthusiasm and enthousiasmos, the Greek version of inspiration
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=enthusiasm&searchmode=none
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthusiasm
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afflatus
December 19th, 2006 at 5:10 am
See also the Thomas text:
http://www.snant.com/fp/archives/gospel-of-thomas-108/
He is talking about sharing breath, how we all breath the same air, the same spirit
And:
Air!
And:
Breathing in, breathing out…
Also:
What is in front of your face is literally air - spirit, breath, etc!
December 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
To go along with the great YHWH passage at the end of your post, here is Campbell talking about “AUM”:
December 20th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
The breath-spirit connection is a deep one in the western tradition…and one that links to the notion of vitalism. Early medical theorists like Hippocrates and Galen placed the pneuma in a central place in understanding what made living things living. In Hippocratic thought the origin and beginnings of life lie in the pneuma (breath) that causes growth and articulation. The concept of the pneuma was also very important to the Stoic philosophers, who saw it as essential to creating the integrity, cohesion and basic characteristics of a living being. The division between the anima and the Galenic pneuma is attributed to Fernelius (1497-1558), otherwise known as Jean François Fernel. Interestingly, Fernel has also been credited with being the first to make a distinction between “physiology” and “pathology.” In the 17th century “pneumatology” was a synonym for psychology.
Around the same period speculative physiologists like Van Helmont used the idea of the archeus, or arc/arch, which was felt to lay in the center of the body (i.e. the diaphram), and along with the nervous system and stomach, was a regulating triumverate of health. Suppose this is a good example of the centrality of somatic balance.
The most famous physician to discuss the anima was Georg Ernst Stahl, an 18th century German who advanced animism as a central medical theory and influenced the Montpellier medical school in its development of vitalism.
It is here, between spirituality and physiology, where the idea of the pneuma/anima version of spirit resonates. To say, however, that the spirit is merely breath is selling it quite short, I think, and “materializes” it almost completely.
Still, clearly, the link is fundamental…
December 20th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
My thoughts are that the spirit is composed of Chi (prana), invisible energy which is contained in all things, but also is present in the air. It is my understanding that breathing is how the body (primarily) obtains Chi.
Breathing also seems to be assosciated with (and may control) many physiological body functions such as heart rate, blood pressure, awareness, blood chemistry, mood, etc.
You may wish to check out a book by Ashida Kim called Ninja Mind Control.
The book states that the Ninjas used breathing techniques to alter one’s metabolism, mood, etc, to suit their needs at that moment (be it combat, evasion, etc).
One quick example will illustrate this. When someone is in pain and crying, their breathing is usually shallow, quick, and uneven. Having that person change their breathing to deeper, slower, even inhalations/exhalations will have an instant calming effect.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Spirituality is as easy as breathing! hehehe
December 20th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I’m not saying it’s “merely” breath. I’m using language to describe something beyond language.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
I wouldn’t personally want to ignore the moral/ethical aspect of anything spiritual I’d see any point to being a part of. Not that I’m saying anyone’s ignoring that, it’s just that I’ve been equating religion/spirituality with morality and ethics for as long as I can remember (not that I practice what I preach of course). I guess I’ve figured breathing exercises and other spiritual practices are mainly useful for helping one develop a more compassionate consciousness that will in turn help one behave more ethically/morally.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Ethics and morality are simply tools to prepare you, to enable you to live well with others, and to give your life structure as you go along the way and experience various things falling away. You needn’t ignore them.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:06 am
I’d say that it’s a major mistake to equate religion/spirituality with morality and ethics. Morality may be important, but to equate spirituality with it is to ignore the reality of spirituality. Ultimately spirituality must be about an experience of the divine. It’s perhaps our dessicated traditional western Christianity, which appears to offer nothing but a bit of aesthetic experience plus some rules for how to be nicer people, that makes people view religion/spirituality as essentially being about morality.
I heard the beginning of an intellectual discussion about hell on the radio this morning, and amid all the talk of the Greeks and Egpytians and the Bible (interesting stuff), the one starkly missing aspect (that no one noticed was missing) was any consideration of whether hell really exists. Seeing as it was a mainstream intellectual discussion, that would be taboo and rather ridiculous. And that’s perhaps slightly similar to thinking religion is essentially about morality.
If the divine does exist, if we are more than accidental bodies, then spirituality must be about much more than morality (about reality in fact), but if not, then it wouldn’t be much more than that.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Why, that’s just a conspiracy theory!
What’s separates the living from the dead? Breathing. You respire until you expire.
It’s no surprise that when people first made up words for stuff, they chose the most obvious description of the situation.
Is he dead?
No, he’s breathing, see?
It’s a beautifully innocent portrayal of life as a material process, not a sophisticated definition of an intangible object.
The “merely” physical is in fact sublime. Behold! This prison we call hell is made not of iron but of ideas. Remove the head!
December 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pm
One word: nashima
December 21st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Oops, my bad– it’s neshima with an ‘e’…
http://is-root.de/wiki/Breath
(should’ve used more than one word the first time, eh?)
December 24th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Just a caution, Tim. The Christian mysteries, while undoubtedly centering on breath, involve ALL the senses, including the sense of taste and the literal tongue. Literal breath, literal tongue, literal teeth. That experience is esoterically called the Eucharist or Holy Communion. Thus, when Jesus speaks of “drinking from one’s own cistern,” he is talking about an experience of drinking in which the organ, the tongue, is in effect tasting itself! True, the breath is being used in a special way to activate the taste receptors of the tongue/glossopharyngeal nerve, so this IS a libation of the breath and of the life of the bod; yet one that does not require crudely stimulating the tongue as with ordinary food, which always obscures the neural energy that is the true source of life.
An interesting conclusion follows, I think: food nourishes us only by gross stimulation of the body. The Buddha once said, when your heart is pure, you can live on one sesamum seed a day. In our fallen state, that single seed is doubtless necessary, but it is so because something is needed to provoke the ever-close-at-hand experience of the living energy of the body. The sesamum seed’s material insignificance, then, is also desirable, lest the stimulus obscure the response: the taste of the living waters.
J Nigro Sansonese
December 24th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Thanks J: I appreciate the clarification. I guess I was aware that I was generalizing towards the extreme with this article, but I was doing so in order to hopefully break through to some new conceptual ground for myself, and clear out old debris - if that makes any sense!