|
Post by silence on Jul 14, 2013 12:11:20 GMT -5
You're just debating yourself with your own perceptions of contrasting paths and an objective non-duality thing. What you said here was basically babble wasn't it. As you said above, the 'goal' of non-duality is authenticity, the goal of personal growth is authenticity. I rarely rarely encounter someone that leans towards personal growth that excludes non-duality. Tolle, Mooji, Adyashanti...they are all popular. I've even seen Niz quotes pop up on my facebook page, posted by people that aren't solely non-dual focused. And yet those on the non-dual pathless path often misunderstand what non-duality is about and exclude personal growth. Non-duality IS personal growth at the end of the day. It has to deny that for the sake of the seeker, but unfortunately what it often creates is elitism, pretentiousness and yet more separation. I had difficulty making it past your arrogant dismissal in the very first sentence. Have a good day Andrew, that's as far as my interest takes me.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 14, 2013 12:20:22 GMT -5
What you said here was basically babble wasn't it. As you said above, the 'goal' of non-duality is authenticity, the goal of personal growth is authenticity. I rarely rarely encounter someone that leans towards personal growth that excludes non-duality. Tolle, Mooji, Adyashanti...they are all popular. I've even seen Niz quotes pop up on my facebook page, posted by people that aren't solely non-dual focused. And yet those on the non-dual pathless path often misunderstand what non-duality is about and exclude personal growth. Non-duality IS personal growth at the end of the day. It has to deny that for the sake of the seeker, but unfortunately what it often creates is elitism, pretentiousness and yet more separation. I had difficulty making it past your arrogant dismissal in the very first sentence. Have a good day Andrew, that's as far as my interest takes me. Okay, have a good 'un yourself.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 14, 2013 12:55:44 GMT -5
I'm new here and still getting to know the characters. (waves to zendancer). I am also certain that I am everything and everybody, the totality. Thanks for clarifying.
there's a pretty common assumption that consciousness requires a complex brain; I've seen discussions (elsewhere) in which it's debated whether your pet dog or cat is conscious. When I've thrown out the possibility that rocks and non-living entities are also conscious, I've been told that is silly or crazy. Discussions with on spiritual forums, or with non-seekers, out of interest? I personally have no idea about whether rocks are conscious, and so I couldn't rule it out. On the flip side I also don't seem to be able to rule out that this instance of consciousness would end if my brain was destroyed. If pressed, I don't think I could be sure that I actually have a brain.
But in this world, I do seem to go around assuming that consciousness has something to do with the brain, and I'd be flat out lying if I said I didn't. It seems a reasonable assumption to make, since there are correlations. If I get a really nasty hit on the head I 'lose consciousness', for example.
Interestingly enough, for last 24 hours, I have been mulling over the question "what does an enlightened person look like?" I came up with two criteria; maybe I will add "clarity" as the third. What other criteria would you add? Identifying what an enlightened (IMO) person looks like is an intuitive/resonation thing really for me, but clarity is an easy 'attribute' to name. I'm honestly a bit stumped by what else I could put on that list. Out of interest, what else did you put?
I hope I figured out this "quote within a quote" thingie... I'd say this forum's quoting functions are quite poorly designed. I've not seen or imagined a better alternative though, so maybe this is as good as it gets!
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 14, 2013 13:11:31 GMT -5
But what I will also say is this. I would be very wary of any 'teacher' that cannot see that the goal of personal growth type paths is, at heart, exactly the same as what the non-dual pathless path is pointing to. This is also a main reason why this forum is a bit of a mess. There are some decent non-dual pointers here, and these pointers definitely have their place, but personal growth type paths are usually rejected as being fundamentally different. It creates a separation on the forum, and this separation can be clearly seen in the different 'camps'. If non-duality EXCLUDES spirituality and personal growth then it is fuc.ked up non-duality. So something simple like EFT, which very usefully releases limiting conditioned beliefs and shifts our energy is likely to be seen on the forum as being based in a delusion. Which is absurd exclusionary pretentious nonsense. And then what we have is a kind of non-dual idiocy that on one hand rejects personal growth and on the other hand is happy to indulge in an cringey form of armchair psychiatry. ::Getting down from soap box:: Looks like a big beautiful mess to me! But isn't that the nature of Life itself? Why the need to control it and have it be a certain way? Who in there thinks they know how it should be?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 14, 2013 13:20:40 GMT -5
But what I will also say is this. I would be very wary of any 'teacher' that cannot see that the goal of personal growth type paths is, at heart, exactly the same as what the non-dual pathless path is pointing to. This is also a main reason why this forum is a bit of a mess. There are some decent non-dual pointers here, and these pointers definitely have their place, but personal growth type paths are usually rejected as being fundamentally different. It creates a separation on the forum, and this separation can be clearly seen in the different 'camps'. If non-duality EXCLUDES spirituality and personal growth then it is fuc.ked up non-duality. So something simple like EFT, which very usefully releases limiting conditioned beliefs and shifts our energy is likely to be seen on the forum as being based in a delusion. Which is absurd exclusionary pretentious nonsense. And then what we have is a kind of non-dual idiocy that on one hand rejects personal growth and on the other hand is happy to indulge in an cringey form of armchair psychiatry. ::Getting down from soap box:: Looks like a big beautiful mess to me! But isn't that the nature of Life itself? Why the need to control it and have it be a certain way? Who in there thinks they know how it should be? Im okay with the way it is, in fact if I have a preference, its this way to the old way. Im referring to an ongoing theme on the forum in the last...I don't know...eighteen months maybe....in which (generalizing here) there has been an ongoing 'battle' between two differing ideologies, and there's nothing 'wrong' with that either. On the other hand, I also find that acceptance doesn't exclude preferences nor the movement to charter a particular course.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 14, 2013 13:29:44 GMT -5
Looks like a big beautiful mess to me! But isn't that the nature of Life itself? Why the need to control it and have it be a certain way? Who in there thinks they know how it should be? Im okay with the way it is, in fact if I have a preference, its this way to the old way. Im referring to an ongoing theme on the forum in the last...I don't know...eighteen months maybe....in which (generalizing here) there has been an ongoing 'battle' between two differing ideologies, and there's nothing 'wrong' with that either. On the other hand, I also find that acceptance doesn't exclude preferences nor the movement to charter a particular course. Would you say that when you reply to a post, you're doing so more to bolster your own beliefs? Rather than convincing others?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 14, 2013 13:33:01 GMT -5
But what I will also say is this. I would be very wary of any 'teacher' that cannot see that the goal of personal growth type paths is, at heart, exactly the same as what the non-dual pathless path is pointing to. This is also a main reason why this forum is a bit of a mess. There are some decent non-dual pointers here, and these pointers definitely have their place, but personal growth type paths are usually rejected as being fundamentally different. It creates a separation on the forum, and this separation can be clearly seen in the different 'camps'. If non-duality EXCLUDES spirituality and personal growth then it is fuc.ked up non-duality. So something simple like EFT, which very usefully releases limiting conditioned beliefs and shifts our energy is likely to be seen on the forum as being based in a delusion. Which is absurd exclusionary pretentious nonsense. And then what we have is a kind of non-dual idiocy that on one hand rejects personal growth and on the other hand is happy to indulge in an cringey form of armchair psychiatry. ::Getting down from soap box:: Looks like a big beautiful mess to me! But isn't that the nature of Life itself? Why the need to control it and have it be a certain way? Who in there thinks they know how it should be? Ha ha, there are messes and then there are messes!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 14, 2013 13:34:55 GMT -5
Im okay with the way it is, in fact if I have a preference, its this way to the old way. Im referring to an ongoing theme on the forum in the last...I don't know...eighteen months maybe....in which (generalizing here) there has been an ongoing 'battle' between two differing ideologies, and there's nothing 'wrong' with that either. On the other hand, I also find that acceptance doesn't exclude preferences nor the movement to charter a particular course. Would you say that when you reply to a post, you're doing so more to bolster your own beliefs? Rather than convincing others? I'm not quite sure what you mean by bolstering beliefs, but at a guess I am interpreting it as 'posting something in order to maintain or defend a self-image'. If I am interpreting correctly, then I would say 'no'. But equally I wouldn't deny that a level of defending/maintaining a self-image can play itself out at times.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 14, 2013 13:44:31 GMT -5
I don't understand your analogies at all, as in how they relate to what I said to enigma. Feel free to explain further. To try to meet with one of your analogies that I don't really understand, some people who recover from alcoholism using AA 12-step maintain to other alcoholics that their ONLY hope of recovery is to do 12-step. And yet apparently some alcoholics can and do recover from alcoholism without following 12 step. Regarding you last sentence, it would be less confusing for me if you stated what you meant in specific terms, e.g. 'I can hear it in someone's voice when they have been where I have been' (if that is what you mean). As it is, I'm unclear on the meaning and so will not comment.
It was a bit cryptic, wasn't it? . You have the right understanding of the last sentence. I'm going to compare Silence and Andrew since Andrew is the poster boy for saying I am That. My proposal is that Enigma prefers Silence's description because it reflects Silence's experiential understanding with what happens when the mind is faced with becoming silent. Anybody can read the testimony of the people that have gone silent internally and take their descriptions of their understanding and turn it into an idealized state to achieve, i.e. Enlightenment or Self-Realization. Anybody can play the game of "How do I pass myself off as being at that final state?". That usually comes along in the form of claiming identity with an idealization stated by a Guru or authority. Niz's "I am That", Ramana's realization that he is the supreme Self, many talk about being the sum total of everything, or being consciousness or Awareness itself. These descriptions of what "I Am" are ways for the mind to attach to the idea of achievement, to the idea of being or becoming enlightened. They become anchor points for the mind to stabilize on as it tries to rebuild the house of cards that were knocked down during existential crisis. For someone whose mind has collapsed, what results is profound and indescribable, meaning there is no way to describe it so that others can experience it. The Tao that can be named and talked about is not the Tao. For someone who has been through that collapse and understands how it happened and understands the futility of description, they focus on the barriers to collapse and focus on the way the mind tries to maintain it's dominance. Some will push at another's house of cards, trying to stimulate a collapse. Very often, those that have been through the collapse of the mind can recognize each other and can recognize in others how far along their mind has collapsed and where it is not collapsed. The way Andrew talks indicates his mind hasn't collapsed fully. When asked, Andrew hesitantly said that he was "That", whatever Niz was talking about in "I am That". Andrew has a focus on mental flexibility. He gets so much flack from Reefigmalence (WOD?) because everything he says feels like his mind hasn't collapsed, but he thinks it has. The focus on Ease, Peace, Mental Flexibility, attainment of Happiness, that is all the mind's agenda. When faced with confrontation he has to place his confronters in a "less enlightened state" than he is in in order to diffuse the threat to his mind. Andrew's mind is like a baloon. You squeeze one end and it pops out even bigger on the other end. If your mind has collapsed, you can tell when someone lives there, in that state where the mind is surrendered from collapse. You can tell when someone is trying to act like they live there, living as if they've achieved a final state. Enigma's preference for Silence's description is a result of Silence's speaking from an authentic position of having had his mind collapse. Enigma can hear it in what he says. The mind that has not collapsed fully will focus on descriptions others have said about a finalized state and try to pass itself off as being there to diffuse the threat. The mind that has collapsed fully has no real words for that, so they will focus on where minds get stuck or resist collapsing. The person known as SerpentQueen would like to express a serious dislike of trying to collapse anyone's mind - unless they've asked for the help, and even then, proceed with caution and lots of care. Such activities are better to be left to in-person interaction, rather than on the internet. I do understand the sincere intention behind it, but there are a lot of fragile people out there. Their minds are in place for a reason. The mind is not the enemy. The mind only wants to protect. If the mind is going to recede into the background, it needs to do so on its own pace. For some that may be a collapse. For others it may be a very gradual, gentle dissolution. For others it may never happen and that's right for them. Sharing experiences, my mind once collapsed completely (on its own and without any help whatsover), and the result was completely overwhelming. That was over 15 years ago. The mind came back again. Ever since, it's been more of a gradual dissolution. It's the difference between being thrown into ice cold water unexpectedly, versus slowly dipping a toe in here and there, and getting acclimated to the water temperature at one's own pace.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 14, 2013 13:53:36 GMT -5
It was a bit cryptic, wasn't it? . You have the right understanding of the last sentence. I'm going to compare Silence and Andrew since Andrew is the poster boy for saying I am That. My proposal is that Enigma prefers Silence's description because it reflects Silence's experiential understanding with what happens when the mind is faced with becoming silent. Anybody can read the testimony of the people that have gone silent internally and take their descriptions of their understanding and turn it into an idealized state to achieve, i.e. Enlightenment or Self-Realization. Anybody can play the game of "How do I pass myself off as being at that final state?". That usually comes along in the form of claiming identity with an idealization stated by a Guru or authority. Niz's "I am That", Ramana's realization that he is the supreme Self, many talk about being the sum total of everything, or being consciousness or Awareness itself. These descriptions of what "I Am" are ways for the mind to attach to the idea of achievement, to the idea of being or becoming enlightened. They become anchor points for the mind to stabilize on as it tries to rebuild the house of cards that were knocked down during existential crisis. For someone whose mind has collapsed, what results is profound and indescribable, meaning there is no way to describe it so that others can experience it. The Tao that can be named and talked about is not the Tao. For someone who has been through that collapse and understands how it happened and understands the futility of description, they focus on the barriers to collapse and focus on the way the mind tries to maintain it's dominance. Some will push at another's house of cards, trying to stimulate a collapse. Very often, those that have been through the collapse of the mind can recognize each other and can recognize in others how far along their mind has collapsed and where it is not collapsed. The way Andrew talks indicates his mind hasn't collapsed fully. When asked, Andrew hesitantly said that he was "That", whatever Niz was talking about in "I am That". Andrew has a focus on mental flexibility. He gets so much flack from Reefigmalence (WOD?) because everything he says feels like his mind hasn't collapsed, but he thinks it has. The focus on Ease, Peace, Mental Flexibility, attainment of Happiness, that is all the mind's agenda. When faced with confrontation he has to place his confronters in a "less enlightened state" than he is in in order to diffuse the threat to his mind. Andrew's mind is like a baloon. You squeeze one end and it pops out even bigger on the other end. If your mind has collapsed, you can tell when someone lives there, in that state where the mind is surrendered from collapse. You can tell when someone is trying to act like they live there, living as if they've achieved a final state. Enigma's preference for Silence's description is a result of Silence's speaking from an authentic position of having had his mind collapse. Enigma can hear it in what he says. The mind that has not collapsed fully will focus on descriptions others have said about a finalized state and try to pass itself off as being there to diffuse the threat. The mind that has collapsed fully has no real words for that, so they will focus on where minds get stuck or resist collapsing. The person known as SerpentQueen would like to express a serious dislike of trying to collapse anyone's mind - unless they've asked for the help, and even then, proceed with caution and lots of care. Such activities are better to be left to in-person interaction, rather than on the internet. I do understand the sincere intention behind it, but there are a lot of fragile people out there. Their minds are in place for a reason. The mind is not the enemy. The mind only wants to protect. If the mind is going to recede into the background, it needs to do so on its own pace. For some that may be a collapse. For others it may be a very gradual, gentle dissolution. For others it may never happen and that's right for them. Sharing experiences, my mind once collapsed completely (on its own and without any help whatsover), and the result was completely overwhelming. That was over 15 years ago. The mind came back again. Ever since, it's been more of a gradual dissolution. It's the difference between being thrown into ice cold water unexpectedly, versus slowly dipping a toe in here and there, and getting acclimated to the water temperature at one's own pace. When you put a sign out front saying "Come here for your mental collapse" and a person walks in the door saying "I want to buy what you've got" and you say "Did you read the sign?" and they say "yes".... If its not what a person wants, they're free to put the offending parties on ignore, go to another forum, etc. I'm having this discussion with Silver in PM. Do we let woundedness dictate society's laws? I don't want to live in a society where we do. How do people get over their woundedness? Where can peeps go to get confrontation when confrontation has been outlawed?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 14, 2013 14:00:56 GMT -5
Would you say that when you reply to a post, you're doing so more to bolster your own beliefs? Rather than convincing others? I'm not quite sure what you mean by bolstering beliefs, but at a guess I am interpreting it as 'posting something in order to maintain or defend a self-image'. If I am interpreting correctly, then I would say 'no'. But equally I wouldn't deny that a level of defending/maintaining a self-image can play itself out at times. No, I didn't mean it in that way. There's a lot of recent research that shows it's pointless for, say, a democrat to try to convince a republican to change their views. What happens in such political debates is that the democrat becomes more democrat, and the republican more republican. The debates only solidify each much more firmly in their opposing positions. This was difficult for me to accept, because I once loved to debate politics. I no longer do, except when I do so with the full awareness that I want to examine my own belief in more detail. To see if the belief holds any water. I will pick up beliefs -- knowing full well that is all they are -- and carry them for awhile to "try them on for size." Then when they no longer serve, I dump them. Or I may continue to carry them, just for the fun of it, and because in the end it doesn't mean anything. But what happens more often than not lately, is that I arrive at the conclusion there's no wrong answer, only truth and differing perspective. I have never been all that much into the "energy" stuff but I'm beginning to see there's merit in that - that if the purpose is to resist nothing, then all this opposing perspective stuff is designed as a way to resist that nothing. So for example when you insist it's potato, and I insist it's potatoe, we're both just stirring up the waters to resist the still clear nothing, and that stirring is what enables something (matter) to perpetually arise out of nothing (Love). I.e., "Love just wants to matter."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2013 14:16:22 GMT -5
Yes. This kind of talk gets infinitely closer to the heart of the matter than all the 'Being/Awareness/Consciousness/I am that I am' talk. You align more with this kind of talk than other kinds of talk, and therefore you see other kinds of talk as having less value. That is a judgment someone with a bias makes, and it is no surprise you have biases like everyone else. Here, to me, you look to be attempting (subconsciously or otherwise) to establish a fact. I would propose that the statement is in fact not factual, it is only your opinion. Of course it's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 14, 2013 14:33:59 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what you mean by bolstering beliefs, but at a guess I am interpreting it as 'posting something in order to maintain or defend a self-image'. If I am interpreting correctly, then I would say 'no'. But equally I wouldn't deny that a level of defending/maintaining a self-image can play itself out at times. No, I didn't mean it in that way. There's a lot of recent research that shows it's pointless for, say, a democrat to try to convince a republican to change their views. What happens in such political debates is that the democrat becomes more democrat, and the republican more republican. The debates only solidify each much more firmly in their opposing positions. This was difficult for me to accept, because I once loved to debate politics. I no longer do, except when I do so with the full awareness that I want to examine my own belief in more detail. To see if the belief holds any water. I will pick up beliefs -- knowing full well that is all they are -- and carry them for awhile to "try them on for size." Then when they no longer serve, I dump them. Or I may continue to carry them, just for the fun of it, and because in the end it doesn't mean anything. But what happens more often than not lately, is that I arrive at the conclusion there's no wrong answer, only truth and differing perspective. I have never been all that much into the "energy" stuff but I'm beginning to see there's merit in that - that if the purpose is to resist nothing, then all this opposing perspective stuff is designed as a way to resist that nothing. So for example when you insist it's potato, and I insist it's potatoe, we're both just stirring up the waters to resist the still clear nothing, and that stirring is what enables something (matter) to perpetually arise out of nothing (Love). I.e., "Love just wants to matter." Okay, I understand what you are saying, thank you for clarifying. When I said back there in my reply to Top that 'I am flexible (in my behavior and thinking)', its pretty much what you said here. In fact a lot of this I have said myself on here (and have been scrupulously but justifiably questioned about it). However, for me, being flexible does include the potential for taking a position/being solid/being inflexible when I discern that a situation calls for it, and lately I have discerned that to be the case on here. I could go into why but it would likely just add a bit of fuel to a fire and I don't want to do that right now.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 14, 2013 15:51:07 GMT -5
You align more with this kind of talk than other kinds of talk, and therefore you see other kinds of talk as having less value. That is a judgment someone with a bias makes, and it is no surprise you have biases like everyone else. Here, to me, you look to be attempting (subconsciously or otherwise) to establish a fact. I would propose that the statement is in fact not factual, it is only your opinion. Of course it's my opinion. Sure. As I said, "to me, you look to be attempting (subconsciously or otherwise) to establish a fact". It's just a communications style thing. It's quite clear to me that if I don't put any qualifiers into a sentence, I run the risk of looking to other people like I'm not offering an opinion, I am stating a fact. And that can come across as arrogance, and people can react badly to it, hindering meaningful conversation.
Equally, many times I've misinterpreted others' levels of certainty because they have communicated without qualifiers, which has again hindered meaningful conversation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2013 16:59:21 GMT -5
But what I will also say is this. I would be very wary of any 'teacher' that cannot see that the goal of personal growth type paths is, at heart, exactly the same as what the non-dual pathless path is pointing to. This is also a main reason why this forum is a bit of a mess. There are some decent non-dual pointers here, and these pointers definitely have their place, but personal growth type paths are usually rejected as being fundamentally different. It creates a separation on the forum, and this separation can be clearly seen in the different 'camps'. If non-duality EXCLUDES spirituality and personal growth then it is fuc.ked up non-duality. So something simple like EFT, which very usefully releases limiting conditioned beliefs and shifts our energy is likely to be seen on the forum as being based in a delusion. Which is absurd exclusionary pretentious nonsense. And then what we have is a kind of non-dual idiocy that on one hand rejects personal growth and on the other hand is happy to indulge in an cringey form of armchair psychiatry. ::Getting down from soap box:: "Personal growth" is not a term i like to use but the evolution and maturity of those personal dynamics is the overwhelming majority of what I discuss here, mostly because that's where most folks are. If personal growth is about how to become a happier, more empowered person, then it doesn't have anything to do with nonduality. Nonduality is for grown-ups. **Kicking Andrew's soap box to the curb**
|
|