|
Post by zendancer on Jun 12, 2020 21:49:14 GMT -5
Some of the posters here are teachers, and some are not, but what's being pointed to has nothing to do with beliefs. On the pathless path of non-duality everything important is discovered through realizations and/or direct interaction with reality unmediated by ideation. Thanks. So, is this a place where to any given post anybody is welcomed to reply, politely, with different even dissenting points of view? I didn't get that vibe so far. The few replies I got were discouraging, bordering rudeness. How do I recognize the teachers that can't be challenged in their beliefs? You can challenge anything or anyone you wish, and you can post anything you wish within the accepted limits of the website, but this forum is oriented rather strongly toward non-duality and non-duality traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen, Mystical Christianity, Mystical Sufism, Gurdjieff's teachings, etc, and existential issues. Other forums cater to interests in the realm of duality.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 12, 2020 22:08:32 GMT -5
Some of the posters here are teachers, and some are not, but what's being pointed to has nothing to do with beliefs. On the pathless path of non-duality everything important is discovered through realizations and/or direct interaction with reality unmediated by ideation. Thanks. So, is this a place where to any given post anybody is welcomed to reply, politely, with different even dissenting points of view? I didn't get that vibe so far. The few replies I got were discouraging, bordering rudeness. How do I recognize the teachers that can't be challenged in their beliefs?If you know that 2 + 2 = 4 then you don't believe it. Read zd's post again and your reply. A good teacher doesn't teach. A good teacher will help point you in the right direction. Concepts are at best maps. But a map by definition can't be the territory. If a map had a direct one-to-one correspondence to the territory, it would be *as big*-as the territory. And everything that enters into the person has to pass through their own subjectivity, so it thus gets distorted inevitably. Our subjectivity colors everything. So this is basically zd's point, how to eliminate distorting subjectivity and "discover through realizations and/or direct interaction with reality". This is through, IMV, bare attention and bare awareness. Anybody can be challenged. This site was a wreck a few years ago, "food fights". Reefs cleaned it up. Reefs has posted some very good stuff on Seth, as have some others. Reefs is your man.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 12, 2020 22:32:08 GMT -5
Some of the posters here are teachers, and some are not, but what's being pointed to has nothing to do with beliefs. On the pathless path of non-duality everything important is discovered through realizations and/or direct interaction with reality unmediated by ideation. Thanks. So, is this a place where to any given post anybody is welcomed to reply, politely, with different even dissenting points of view? I didn't get that vibe so far. The few replies I got were discouraging, bordering rudeness. How do I recognize the teachers that can't be challenged in their beliefs? I agree, you had some unjustified hostility coming your way. But trust me, that's nothing compared to the toxicity that ran amok here a few years ago. We are all rather civilized now. But as they say, old habits die hard. Another thing you should keep in mind is that this is predominantly a non-duality forum even though all other spiritual topics are welcome. And non-duality deals with the ultimate or absolute reality (or truth) as opposed to let's say Seth who mainly deals with relative realities (or truths). Because of that, people who subscribe to non-duality are less likely to allow you any wiggle room on topics about truth in general and are usually quick to dismiss anything they consider to be relative truths. And that's the tone in non-duality circles in general. So, don't take it too personal when it happens. Someone may have realized the ultimate truth but at the same time still can remain stuck in unhealthy behavioral patterns. It's quite fascinating, actually. And also surprisingly common. People are people after all. Yes, that's a question that gets pursued here a lot. And that's what a lot of dialogs here have been about, finding out if the other speaks from true understanding (realization) or is just repeating what has been written or said elsewhere (belief system).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 12, 2020 22:41:36 GMT -5
Reefs has posted some very good stuff on Seth, as have some others. Reefs is your man. Yeah, I'd like to get back to some of the Seth quotes Inavalan posted. Some good stuff. But I'm absolutely snowed under with off forum stuff at the moment. So that may take a while. Hang in there. @ Inavalan: did you buy/read all the Seth books? I saw you quoting from the personal sessions. Would be cool talking to someone who has thoroughly studied Seth.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 12, 2020 23:37:03 GMT -5
Thanks. So, is this a place where to any given post anybody is welcomed to reply, politely, with different even dissenting points of view? I didn't get that vibe so far. The few replies I got were discouraging, bordering rudeness. How do I recognize the teachers that can't be challenged in their beliefs? You can challenge anything or anyone you wish, and you can post anything you wish within the accepted limits of the website, but this forum is oriented rather strongly toward non-duality and non-duality traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen, Mystical Christianity, Mystical Sufism, Gurdjieff's teachings, etc, and existential issues. Other forums cater to interests in the realm of duality. Thank you for your reply. I understand.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 12, 2020 23:38:58 GMT -5
Thanks. So, is this a place where to any given post anybody is welcomed to reply, politely, with different even dissenting points of view? I didn't get that vibe so far. The few replies I got were discouraging, bordering rudeness. How do I recognize the teachers that can't be challenged in their beliefs? I agree, you had some unjustified hostility coming your way. But trust me, that's nothing compared to the toxicity that ran amok here a few years ago. We are all rather civilized now. But as they say, old habits die hard. Another thing you should keep in mind is that this is predominantly a non-duality forum even though all other spiritual topics are welcome. And non-duality deals with the ultimate or absolute reality (or truth) as opposed to let's say Seth who mainly deals with relative realities (or truths). Because of that, people who subscribe to non-duality are less likely to allow you any wiggle room on topics about truth in general and are usually quick to dismiss anything they consider to be relative truths. And that's the tone in non-duality circles in general. So, don't take it too personal when it happens. Someone may have realized the ultimate truth but at the same time still can remain stuck in unhealthy behavioral patterns. It's quite fascinating, actually. And also surprisingly common. People are people after all. Yes, that's a question that gets pursued here a lot. And that's what a lot of dialogs here have been about, finding out if the other speaks from true understanding (realization) or is just repeating what has been written or said elsewhere (belief system). Thank you. I understand.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 13, 2020 0:16:15 GMT -5
Reefs has posted some very good stuff on Seth, as have some others. Reefs is your man. Yeah, I'd like to get back to some of the Seth quotes Inavalan posted. Some good stuff. But I'm absolutely snowed under with off forum stuff at the moment. So that may take a while. Hang in there. @ Inavalan: did you buy/read all the Seth books? I saw you quoting from the personal sessions. Would be cool talking to someone who has thoroughly studied Seth. I read cover to cover only the first book dictated by Seth, and I browsed several others. I read several good collections of Seth quotes, participated in discussions on a couple of Seth forums, and from time to time used a Seth search engine. In spite of this, I believe I have a good enough understanding of what Seth taught, and of what was Jane Roberts and Rob Butts' position in regard to the material. I arrived to Seth after I experimented, then explored, altered states of consciousness through self-hypnosis. I haven't followed any guru, dogma, or teacher, but my path meandered through many books, and some internet forums that served as stepping stones to find my own way to explore. I believe that from the many sources available, many honest people that believe they know the truth, you can't know who's right. Besides, we all have our conscious and subconscious beliefs, our expectations, emotional and intellectual make up that inherently introduce distortions. I believe that the only way to get reasonably closer to the truth is to turn inwards and contact your own source of knowledge and guidance (an inner guide). That's what I did and what I do. In this quest it is essential to leave aside all your beliefs and expectations, and not rationalize the information you receive, at all. Then, I got an idea to compare notes with Jane Roberts' Seth, and not only I got independent confirmation of much of what I had already learned directly, but I believe I understood better several concepts widely misinterpreted by Sethians. When I discovered your Seth quotes thread on this site, I signed up, both to read them and hopefully to discuss Seth concepts. Unfortunately, I didn't get yet to read that thread, and I didn't find any current interest in Seth at other forumites. If at any time you're interested in discussing Seth, or related, I'm willing to share my perspective. Regarding non-duality, I am only vaguely familiar with the concept, and not interested in pursuing it, as I am not interested in any other teachings, dogmas, or gurus, preferring, as I said, my inner source of knowledge and guidance. I respect others' right to their own opinions. I believe it is of paramount importance for each one of us to figure out, as undistorted as possible, the reason for which he/she is here, now, on Earth, and what does he/she has to do while here. I believe that these are the most important questions, that it's easier to figure answers to them, than trying to discover the wider reality model and then rationalize what we have to do. I don't think our intellect is developed enough to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 13, 2020 1:37:31 GMT -5
I read cover to cover only the first book dictated by Seth, and I browsed several others. I read several good collections of Seth quotes, participated in discussions on a couple of Seth forums, and from time to time used a Seth search engine. In spite of this, I believe I have a good enough understanding of what Seth taught, and of what was Jane Roberts and Rob Butts' position in regard to the material. I arrived to Seth after I experimented, then explored, altered states of consciousness through self-hypnosis. I haven't followed any guru, dogma, or teacher, but my path meandered through many books, and some internet forums that served as stepping stones to find my own way to explore. I believe that from the many sources available, many honest people that believe they know the truth, you can't know who's right. Besides, we all have our conscious and subconscious beliefs, our expectations, emotional and intellectual make up that inherently introduce distortions. I believe that the only way to get reasonably closer to the truth is to turn inwards and contact your own source of knowledge and guidance (an inner guide). That's what I did and what I do. In this quest it is essential to leave aside all your beliefs and expectations, and not rationalize the information you receive, at all. Then, I got an idea to compare notes with Jane Roberts' Seth, and not only I got independent confirmation of much of what I had already learned directly, but I believe I understood better several concepts widely misinterpreted by Sethians. When I discovered your Seth quotes thread on this site, I signed up, both to read them and hopefully to discuss Seth concepts. Unfortunately, I didn't get yet to read that thread, and I didn't find any current interest in Seth at other forumites. If at any time you're interested in discussing Seth, or related, I'm willing to share my perspective. Regarding non-duality, I am only vaguely familiar with the concept, and not interested in pursuing it, as I am not interested in any other teachings, dogmas, or gurus, preferring, as I said, my inner source of knowledge and guidance. I respect others' right to their own opinions. I believe it is of paramount importance for each one of us to figure out, as undistorted as possible, the reason for which he/she is here, now, on Earth, and what does he/she has to do while here. I believe that these are the most important questions, that it's easier to figure answers to them, than trying to discover the wider reality model and then rationalize what we have to do. I don't think our intellect is developed enough to figure it out. You mean the book Seth Speaks? I've bought all the Seth books and have read almost all of them except the personal/deleted sessions (just been browsing a bit here and there) because those are mostly about past life stuff of Rob and Jane and their friends which I have no real interest in. But very practical information there, too. So it's still on my reading list. I came to Seth via A-H (Abraham-Hicks). In their workshops people kept showing up wanting them to comment on Seth. And A-H always said, Abraham and Seth are "chips off the old block, same family of teachers". So at some point I got curious and bought a Seth book. And then I got even more curious and bought the whole stuff. Took me almost year to read it all, but it put a lot of other teachings into perspective for me, especially Quantum Mechanics. Most here on the forum are highly critical of the Seth material, and channeled material in general. I never gave it much thought because I've been into A-H for more than a decade. But there are some here who are more open to this. Andrew used to talk a lot about Bashar and SDP has read a few Seth books as well. Yes, it's better to check with the original source than to just randomly copy and paste quotes from the internet. This is a common problem here on the forum as well (probably most forums), people often just copy and paste quotes they like from teachers on some website without checking/realizing the original context of these quotes. And so there's a lot of misrepresentation and mangling of other teachers messages going on. Additionally, everyone has their own personal filter. The way I mostly look at the Seth material is thru the A-H and non-duality filter. Something to keep in mind when you see me talking about Seth. Re: Your disinterest in non-duality, I think no one here got into non-duality right away. Most people I know here have quite a history of following all kinds of traditions or belief systems for many many years. But what they all seem to have in common is that they've realized that while they've made some progress in a relative sense, they weren't getting anywhere in an absolute sense, i.e. they learned new things and tricks, but still found no answers to their core question(s). That's a common theme I see in non-duality. People get there because they got disillusioned with everything else, sorta like a terminally ill patient that hospital doctors gave up on who eventually shows up at a natural healing center. A-H often say, 'We love talking to terminally ill people, because they are the only ones who are sincere enough and actually listen to what we say'. The reason why I keep talking about A-H and Seth on a non-duality forum is because, as odd as it seems, there actually is a connection between these two kinds of teachings. It's just not obvious because channeled material tends to come out rather convoluted and in non-duality, especially in Advaita, they have very precise vocabulary and categories. So, I'd say, browse a bit thru the Seth quote thread and pay special attention to what Seth says about inner ego and outer ego, camouflage, units of consciousness (CU's), vitality and Seth Two. That's where the Seth teaching relates to A-H and also the non-duality teachings. And yes to your last paragraph. The intellect (or personal mind) doesn't have a high reputation in non-duality either. In fact, what non-duality is pointing to belongs entirely to a 'realm' that we call prior to mind or the impersonal. It may take some time to get used to the non-dual vocabulary we use here, but once you got used to it, you'll see the actual practical, day-to-day-life implications of non-duality as well.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 13, 2020 6:13:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd like to get back to some of the Seth quotes Inavalan posted. Some good stuff. But I'm absolutely snowed under with off forum stuff at the moment. So that may take a while. Hang in there. @ Inavalan: did you buy/read all the Seth books? I saw you quoting from the personal sessions. Would be cool talking to someone who has thoroughly studied Seth. Regarding non-duality, I am only vaguely familiar with the concept, and not interested in pursuing it, as I am not interested in any other teachings, dogmas, or gurus, preferring, as I said, my inner source of knowledge and guidance. I respect others' right to their own opinions. I believe it is of paramount importance for each one of us to figure out, as undistorted as possible, the reason for which he/she is here, now, on Earth, and what does he/she has to do while here. I believe that these are the most important questions, that it's easier to figure answers to them, than trying to discover the wider reality model and then rationalize what we have to do. I don't think our intellect is developed enough to figure it out.That's the core issue, and trusting oneself and looking "inside" to one's "inner source of knowledge and guidance" is paramount. Most people interested in non-duality are also not interested in dogmas. All of the non-duality traditions simply point "inside." "Look within" is the primary admonition.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 1, 2020 14:39:13 GMT -5
How I came to know what I know was by questioning everything. First, intellectually, and then, later, with the intellect and emotions completely silent, for a sustained period of time. This was done based on looking inward, and it is in not-knowing that one frees oneself from bias. As I've said before, it wasn't an acquisition of knowledge, it was a falling away of knowledge. But that was a state of body/mind, and no state lasts forever. It's not quite accurate to say that the not-knowing was a means to an end, but that's how the story sounds. In that end, what is discovered, is that there is no inner, and there is no outer, there only .. is. So, I think I see the point that you say I misunderstood: you're not questioning, now? But I think you've described a process that eventually led you to several conclusions, like this one, for example: Would you say that process ever involved questioning the nature of your outer sense perceptions? [1]I never met anyone who could consider themselves to be a guru when I was seeking, although I did follow some prescriptions in a pair of books, and can perceive some formative influences that led up to that. But there is no consensus belief that I either subscribe to, or have to offer, as nothing I'm writing about is anything that someone doesn't have to discover for themselves. What you say about how everyone is creating their own reality is relatively true, but it has limits to it, just as the notion that agreement on certain physical phenomenon imply an objective physical reality. Both are contextually bound, both are material in nature, just of different substance. Either statement: that you create your own subjective reality, or that you live relative to a common, objective reality, has elements of practical truth, but one facet of the existential truth is that neither are completely true. And, please don't mistake the use of mind to illustrate via philosophical turn of phrase, as reliance on a philosophy. I find interesting how you on one hand make statements carefully to seem unchallengeable truth, but vague enough to shape it how you want it to be seen, and on the other hand you pick from my statements some formulations, change their meaning (I guess unconsciously) into something that should obviously be dismissed (as it contrasts with your unchallengeable truth). As I repeatedly stated, I'm not here for an argument, neither to inflict my beliefs on others, nor to learn from theirs. I get sometimes deeper than I intended in these kinds of exchanges when those who dismiss my beliefs do it demonstratively. Eventually I realize it and back off. I don't intend to convince anybody, and there is no way I could be convinced, as I don't rely on rationalizations (I don't think rationalizations can lead to the kind of truth I'm interested in). I try, not always successfully, to reply only to those who are curious to understand what I say. [1] No I didn't question that. My belief is the result of channeling inner knowledge. I call "inner" what is beyond the physical reality, "outer" being the 3D physical reality. So your formulation "there only .. is" is beside the point.
My "process", you referred to, was to find the way to learn (how to learn), and not to accumulate and rationalize knowledge (not what to learn). So my beliefs can be said that registered a "step function": I didn't know >> Now I know (not all at once, but in successive bites, that never contradicted older bites, but occasionally clarified them). Is this better than knowing what you're looking for? I believe so, because I have no bias. I won't repeat any disclaimer, not to give the wrong impression. Interesting ... NOTE: I'm sorry that this dialogue went off the A-H topic so much. I don't mind if it is moved away, or removed for the thread's sake. Well, I don't feel as though I've dismissed your beliefs, but rather, disagreed with them. What specifically, did I change about what you meant to convey?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 1, 2020 15:00:38 GMT -5
I find interesting how you on one hand make statements carefully to seem unchallengeable truth, but vague enough to shape it how you want it to be seen, and on the other hand you pick from my statements some formulations, change their meaning (I guess unconsciously) into something that should obviously be dismissed (as it contrasts with your unchallengeable truth). As I repeatedly stated, I'm not here for an argument, neither to inflict my beliefs on others, nor to learn from theirs. I get sometimes deeper than I intended in these kinds of exchanges when those who dismiss my beliefs do it demonstratively. Eventually I realize it and back off. I don't intend to convince anybody, and there is no way I could be convinced, as I don't rely on rationalizations (I don't think rationalizations can lead to the kind of truth I'm interested in). I try, not always successfully, to reply only to those who are curious to understand what I say. [1] No I didn't question that. My belief is the result of channeling inner knowledge. I call "inner" what is beyond the physical reality, "outer" being the 3D physical reality. So your formulation "there only .. is" is beside the point.
My "process", you referred to, was to find the way to learn (how to learn), and not to accumulate and rationalize knowledge (not what to learn). So my beliefs can be said that registered a "step function": I didn't know >> Now I know (not all at once, but in successive bites, that never contradicted older bites, but occasionally clarified them). Is this better than knowing what you're looking for? I believe so, because I have no bias. I won't repeat any disclaimer, not to give the wrong impression. Interesting ... NOTE: I'm sorry that this dialogue went off the A-H topic so much. I don't mind if it is moved away, or removed for the thread's sake. Well, I don't feel as though I've dismissed your beliefs, but rather, disagreed with them. What specifically, did I change about what you meant to convey? Sorry. I believe this discussion ran its course. It became tiring for me. Thanks for your comments. I respect your right to your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2020 2:13:09 GMT -5
Well, I don't feel as though I've dismissed your beliefs, but rather, disagreed with them. What specifically, did I change about what you meant to convey? Sorry. I believe this discussion ran its course. It became tiring for me. Thanks for your comments. I respect your right to your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 2, 2020 12:39:44 GMT -5
Sorry. I believe this discussion ran its course. It became tiring for me. Thanks for your comments. I respect your right to your opinions.
Thank you for the picture. I'm not familiar with that series, and don't understand the reference.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2020 1:12:42 GMT -5
Thank you for the picture. I'm not familiar with that series, and don't understand the reference. The story it's from (one episode of classic TV) is an exploration of the difference and entanglement between the physical/non-physical, in the context of, contention.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 3, 2020 13:53:07 GMT -5
Thank you for the picture. I'm not familiar with that series, and don't understand the reference. The story it's from (one episode of classic TV) is an exploration of the difference and entanglement between the physical/non-physical, in the context of, contention. Thanks. It sounds interesting. Like forever, people wondered about things, reached conclusions, argued their validity. There'll be a "wider reality check" soon enough. It seems you perceived our dialogue as contention. It wasn't my intention. I thought you wanted clarifications only. I'm not interested in arguing the validity of what I believe, neither to convince nor to be convinced.
|
|