|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2020 22:21:48 GMT -5
L: FWIW, I've never heard a ZM say anything other than that people must discover the truth for themselves. Yes, I've seen some hero worship in the Zen tradition, but the teachers themselves, without exception in my experience, have always reiterated the dictum set forth by the Buddha to "become a lamp unto yourself." The tradition has some rigid rules about format, but not about the fundamental importance of people verifying for themselves anything stated by anyone in a position of institutional importance. There may be a Zen teacher somewhere who doesn't support this idea, but I've never met one, and I've met and interacted with hundreds of people in that tradition. Thanks ZD.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 19, 2020 11:44:07 GMT -5
Self seeking is to project an unconscious emotion to the future to then be sought out as a form of compensation for the emotion projected. This happens unconsciously, and cycles into degradation for the person as pain is layered into the identity. For the paycheck to paycheck folk, take one paycheck away and watch the reaction. You’ll likely see a loss of self crisis, which means they are self seeking, and the self being sought out has been eliminated. That’s when some emotional processing can take place, as the projected emotion percolates and more often than not is simply projected and avoided in some other compensatory form. You mention passion being a double edged sword. Welp, fervently self seeking might look like passion, and can also create change in its own way, but this is more of a manic emotional avoidance than a connection between heart and mind. Self seeking must end in disaster because one is programming oneself to implode. Where as connecting with ones passions in an authentic way possesses no such potential because no self is being sought out which means life can never eliminate you. On a mystical level, Ill even say celestials can access and influence your conditioning to a greater degree when ones mind isn’t clouded by the dark psychic force that accompanies all self seeking. Once we start to compensate for shame or guilt or pain of loss, we lose ourselves to Jungs collective unconscious in a most debilitating way. If one is already under that type of dark control, that’s when withdrawing may be a good idea. Self seeking is all unconscious and about remaining unconscious, and so when Tolle says the means corrupt the ends, this is what he means. A success gained through avoiding and compensating requires more avoidance and more compensation to sustain itself. This sustenance implicitly becomes more difficult with time, although I agree with Jed that most facades and egoic structures outlive their makers. Hence, the dark potentiality of the collective spirit pool. Furthermore, Lots of zen monks and meditators self seek. You can self seek through shifting attention away from your emotions toward the future present moment where one can bask in isness. This is also when cloaking happens. The emotion avoided invites a compensatory energy or spirit, one that wants control of your life and if you’re in the presence of some dark stuff likely one that will ruin your life, or maybe just give away all your stuff. So when is presence or basking in isness a conscious enterprise and to what degree is it spiritually influenced to perpetuate self aversion? Did Ramana have sex after the age of 18? There is a variable in Personality complexes that causes a lack of sexual attraction to either sex, called asexual personality disorder. Not to take away from the the depth of Ramanas teachings, but if he has that variable in his complex and you don’t, and he simultaneously fails to acknowledge it or understand it, then his teaching is incomplete due to the presence of unprocessed emotion linked to his complex. This failure to process also leads to gurus being pedastalized, and that only makes spiritual enlightenment as defined by them completely unattainable. Hencely, off with their heads. Sounds like I’m guru bashing, where some gurus are projecting and flirting while others may be asexual, but these are very real psychological phenomenon that most folks don’t understand. The devil was in the Catholic Churches for quite some time, and many folks avoided the truth due to an inability to process it. Adyashanti meditated until he was exhausted. Does that sound like self love or self abuse? Ask him. He’ll probably say a bit of both. To expect others to abuse themselves to get enlightened, when all need to do is process emotion and be more conscious, is intertwined into guru tradition and even thought of as spiritually idealistic. I’m reminded of the ace ventura movie where African warriors stand atop a totem pole on one foot for days prior to being given a spiritual promotion. The solution is ultimately beyond ones control, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. God is the ultimate authority. You are more than capable of having a beautiful co creative relationship with the universe as a separate person once the idea that either exists independently of the other is flushed from the system. Truth speaks for itself, and there aren’t two truths. Belief in non separation brings with it some experiential effects, mostly disassociative and non fulfilling. Realizing non separateness is a different beast, and the experience in the wake of eradicating ones facade will open the hatch to a new way of studying co creation. Knowing when to step out of the way and when to take the reigns. When to pursue desire and how to notice self seeking. These are aspects of the natural state, that don’t need to be taught. Untruths need to be unlearned, and by adolescence we all believe a lot of stuff about the world and self that isn’t in harmony with either our experience but is in harmony with facade erection and growth.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 21, 2020 2:14:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 21, 2020 2:40:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2020 23:09:05 GMT -5
O.k. so you and I are using "self-seeking" in different ways. What I mean by it is this. The typical sense of personal identity of most people is based in various form, and is wrong. This leads to the uneasy feeling of existential dread. It might be felt strongly, or almost not at all, but it will always be there, underneath the surface. It might not feel like dread: many people channel it into various forms of cultural dissatisfaction. This can happen in a myriad of ways - never exactly the same twice, actually - but if someone becomes conscious of the dread they might start looking around for answers about and a solution to it. Ultimately, this is what the 1st commandment means: not that you should worship an ancient, pre-historic, tribal personified deity that jealously demands your worship and gets pissed if you eat pickles on Tuesday. Instead, it means that most people will feel a sense of inner lack, longing and incompleteness that they'll try to fill in some way. Most people put either their material selves and/or a God of their imagination before the existential truth of One, usually, but not always, some sort of interlaced combination of the two. So, self-seeking, in the way I use the term and understand it, means anything that a person does to solve what is for most people the existential problem, either unconsciously, or consciously. Now, in the way you've defined it, I'd refer to that as the common delusion of space/time as it relates to that false sense of identity. But even in the absence of the existential illusion, time keeps rolling on and emotions happen, as do all sorts of material demands and expectations. Pain is an inevitability of life, but suffering is a different matter altogether, isn't really all that inevitable, and occurs in various matter of degree that is certainly related by what you and I might be able to agree is a process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our body/mind/world. I hesitate to join you in the notion of celestial influence because it's just not the way I'm conditioned to look and feel and understand appearances as they appear. As time goes on I can relate to these notions more and more, but I don't think I'll ever abandon the caveat that there's ultimately nothing really all that personal about the Universe. So with that as context, on to your first question directly: So when is presence or basking in isness a conscious enterprise and to what degree is it spiritually influenced to perpetuate self aversion? It's conscious to the extent it's done absent expectation, and with any one of a number of potential modes of focus, including curiosity, or opening up to let go. While all the existential questions are misconceived, and the one who would surrender while remaining on the battlefield is engaging in the act of self-defeat, the flip side is that noone can ever decide to realize the existential truth and be done with it. While, in relative terms, we're responsible for all sorts of choices that get made in the flow of life, in absolute terms, the assumption of a separate volitional entity making those choices is one of the prime components of the existential error. But becoming conscious - certainly prior to realizing the truth - is a matter of degree. While that truth is an immediacy and a commonality that could never be a reward for hard work or virtue or right-think as it's pricelessly free, there are certain obvious movements of body/mind that very clearly obscure it, and delusion is always a matter of depth. As an aside, I'd opine that the question of becoming conscious after realization is actually not so simple. Be that as it may, the degree of sincerity of any given isness basker at any given time is going to depend on factors including their conditioning, and when and if they ever realize the truth is really the singular mystery of existence. It is because there's no conditioned end to the existential error that spiritually influenced perpetuation of falsity is an inevitability. Take what Jed wrote in his first book in terms of recommendation: if you asked him at that point, his opinion was that settling for human adulthood was his advice, because enlightenment just isn't what most people think it is. While I don't share all of his negative and dark views about what has to happen along the way to realization - although I can understand it to happen those ways as well - people are going to look for ways to reconcile themselves with something that they just might accept that they'll never understand. This is, of course, prime breeding ground for all sorts of spiritual organizations, traditions and guru's. Much of that follows Jed's metaphor of talking caterpillars. While you and other's can and will write and publish volumes of entirely valid material critical of those artifacts - and perhaps, at times, intensely so - the fact is that some of them can and do help people become more conscious of the content and dynamic of body/mind/world. As this is already a wall I'll write another post to respond to the rest from where you mention Ramana's sex life.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2020 23:48:02 GMT -5
Did Ramana have sex after the age of 18? ... I don't know enough about his story to say with any authority, but I'd guess no. I see your point that he might not be able to relate to certain people because of that, but I don't think of asexuality as any sort of pathology. Can any spiritual "teaching" ever really be "complete"? What would that mean, really? Seems to me that various people are where they are and might be led to becoming more conscious based on all sorts of various stimuli, and some of it might even be contradictory from source-to-source. Seems to me that it's all situational. Ramana was all about a pure, refined, direct question, probably best suited for people who are quite ripe. That's not to say that I don't completely disagree with the potential of a holistic approach, it's just that .. whoever that's going to "work" for, is who it will "work" for. People and cultures condition themselves into all sorts of hierarchies, tests and testing, much of it ritualized, most of it simply to serve the purpose of some sort of self-perpetuation. But that doesn't mean that all existential challenge is necessarily extraneous. Have you read any of the Zen stories with the dialogs between Masters and students? The Catholic Church is one hell of a study in extremes and contrasts, no doubt. The suffering it has caused at various times in history is completely undeniable. On the flip side, it's unlikely that there would have been any viable vehicle for this Jesus character, and his spiritual footprint, without them. And I honestly don't think that they're all bad, in material terms, either. It's a fascinating point to contemplate that they're the last vestige of the Roman Empire, and not in any sort of symbolic sense, but in a very material fact of continuity of culture. It was an inevitable culmination of the agricultural revolution that some group was going to be the best at slave-driving conquest and genocide. That a state-sponsored religion with a message of Universal love and unconditional forgiveness would follow from that was not only not so inevitable, but completely counter-intuitive. If some people get to the truth by literally stripping it all away then that's how they get there. To paraphrase ZD, THIS .. is full of surprises, without limits. Does it seem to me that a monastery is ever necessary to "get there"? No, but who am I to judge, and who is anyone who's never walked that path to know about the ones who have? It's interesting because the Buddha tried all that stuff to the extreme, none of it worked, and he eventually started teaching "the middle way". So, this discussion we're having here is a very old one, and will likely recur for as long as there are people who talk and write. Now, as for this: The solution is ultimately beyond ones control, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. God is the ultimate authority. You are more than capable of having a beautiful co creative relationship with the universe as a separate person once the idea that either exists independently of the other is flushed from the system. Truth speaks for itself, and there aren’t two truths. Belief in non separation brings with it some experiential effects, mostly disassociative and non fulfilling. Realizing non separateness is a different beast, and the experience in the wake of eradicating ones facade will open the hatch to a new way of studying co creation. Knowing when to step out of the way and when to take the reigns. When to pursue desire and how to notice self seeking. These are aspects of the natural state, that don’t need to be taught. Untruths need to be unlearned, and by adolescence we all believe a lot of stuff about the world and self that isn’t in harmony with either our experience but is in harmony with facade erection and growth.
Amen, to almost all of it. Falsity can and sometimes will be unlearned, but that is a process. Realizing the false, as false, can happen in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 22, 2020 8:59:49 GMT -5
Ha. I don’t listen to most mumble rap either, but this song is growing on me.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 22, 2020 9:34:04 GMT -5
O.k. so you and I are using "self-seeking" in different ways. What I mean by it is this. The typical sense of personal identity of most people is based in various form, and is wrong. This leads to the uneasy feeling of existential dread. It might be felt strongly, or almost not at all, but it will always be there, underneath the surface. It might not feel like dread: many people channel it into various forms of cultural dissatisfaction. This can happen in a myriad of ways - never exactly the same twice, actually - but if someone becomes conscious of the dread they might start looking around for answers about and a solution to it. Ultimately, this is what the 1st commandment means: not that you should worship an ancient, pre-historic, tribal personified deity that jealously demands your worship and gets pissed if you eat pickles on Tuesday. Instead, it means that most people will feel a sense of inner lack, longing and incompleteness that they'll try to fill in some way. Most people put either their material selves and/or a God of their imagination before the existential truth of One, usually, but not always, some sort of interlaced combination of the two. So, self-seeking, in the way I use the term and understand it, means anything that a person does to solve what is for most people the existential problem, either unconsciously, or consciously. Now, in the way you've defined it, I'd refer to that as the common delusion of space/time as it relates to that false sense of identity. But even in the absence of the existential illusion, time keeps rolling on and emotions happen, as do all sorts of material demands and expectations. Pain is an inevitability of life, but suffering is a different matter altogether, isn't really all that inevitable, and occurs in various matter of degree that is certainly related by what you and I might be able to agree is a process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our body/mind/world. I hesitate to join you in the notion of celestial influence because it's just not the way I'm conditioned to look and feel and understand appearances as they appear. As time goes on I can relate to these notions more and more, but I don't think I'll ever abandon the caveat that there's ultimately nothing really all that personal about the Universe. So with that as context, on to your first question directly: So when is presence or basking in isness a conscious enterprise and to what degree is it spiritually influenced to perpetuate self aversion? It's conscious to the extent it's done absent expectation, and with any one of a number of potential modes of focus, including curiosity, or opening up to let go. While all the existential questions are misconceived, and the one who would surrender while remaining on the battlefield is engaging in the act of self-defeat, the flip side is that noone can ever decide to realize the existential truth and be done with it. While, in relative terms, we're responsible for all sorts of choices that get made in the flow of life, in absolute terms, the assumption of a separate volitional entity making those choices is one of the prime components of the existential error. But becoming conscious - certainly prior to realizing the truth - is a matter of degree. While that truth is an immediacy and a commonality that could never be a reward for hard work or virtue or right-think as it's pricelessly free, there are certain obvious movements of body/mind that very clearly obscure it, and delusion is always a matter of depth. As an aside, I'd opine that the question of becoming conscious after realization is actually not so simple. Be that as it may, the degree of sincerity of any given isness basker at any given time is going to depend on factors including their conditioning, and when and if they ever realize the truth is really the singular mystery of existence. It is because there's no conditioned end to the existential error that spiritually influenced perpetuation of falsity is an inevitability. Take what Jed wrote in his first book in terms of recommendation: if you asked him at that point, his opinion was that settling for human adulthood was his advice, because enlightenment just isn't what most people think it is. While I don't share all of his negative and dark views about what has to happen along the way to realization - although I can understand it to happen those ways as well - people are going to look for ways to reconcile themselves with something that they just might accept that they'll never understand. This is, of course, prime breeding ground for all sorts of spiritual organizations, traditions and guru's. Much of that follows Jed's metaphor of talking caterpillars. While you and other's can and will write and publish volumes of entirely valid material critical of those artifacts - and perhaps, at times, intensely so - the fact is that some of them can and do help people become more conscious of the content and dynamic of body/mind/world. As this is already a wall I'll write another post to respond to the rest from where you mention Ramana's sex life. As far as self seeking, as I define its an entirely mathematical framework that plays well into a deeper truth of why when we start becoming conscious, why when we eliminate self seeking, things like synchronicity and alignment happen. Meaning, because of the variable of compensation for injury, essentially self seeking is the human attempt to correct Gods mistakes, while we could say waking up involves seeing that God didn’t make a mistake. People, on the other hand, make mistakes all the time. However, on this line the Avenue is open for a more intricate exploration of why the purification of ones desires leads to universal cooperation. Being that our self seeking, our repressions and compensations, and yes our desires, are intertwined by the conditions of self we don’t want to see (inferiority) but also conditions of life that actually happen. And so even our self seeking is coded by God, or intricately linked to oneness and how not to experience that. Celstials, yea, I mean what is a celestial anyway. It’s a dimensional thing, a higher dimensional thing, and a messenger of God. And so before we even talk about it we’d need to get a clear view of what’s going on in the lower dimensions, how blocked emotions invite dark spiritual energy to compensate, and more importantly how this energy itself can play the role of a guide. Some people think they’re talking to celestials when the truth of the matter is they’re completely cloaked by what I might even call demonic energy. God told me to sacrifice the first born. No dummy, that wasn’t God. But if I had to define a celestial, I would call it virtually purified consciousness unbound by time and space with an ability to reach your mind to the extent you aren’t self seeking or desiring to self seek. Unlike a cloaking energy, which actually takes control of your mind, and depends on self seeking, this energy is connected with higher intuition and synchronizing your desires with your trajectory. Onto your next writing, it seems as if you are dealing with an Eckhart Tolle cloak. I was also cloaked by Eckhart and this wasn’t a bad thing implicitly because I learned a lot. But the idea you’re going to wake up or be free from mind identification without emotional processing is nonsense. Human unconsciousness is unprocessed emotion. To the extent a vortex experience is being sold as a fix all, and presence absent thought and emotion as a gateway, you have a marvelous scheme to make money and gain control over peoples minds. Hitler did something similar. But, no, Eckhart is not Hitler. I love him like a brother and admire his intellect. But you’d be kidding yourself if you think following his teaching is going to lead to a life of abundance like the one he has, and that’s by design, not Gods but his.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 22, 2020 9:40:46 GMT -5
Did Ramana have sex after the age of 18? ... I don't know enough about his story to say with any authority, but I'd guess no. I see your point that he might not be able to relate to certain people because of that, but I don't think of asexuality as any sort of pathology. Can any spiritual "teaching" ever really be "complete"? What would that mean, really? Seems to me that various people are where they are and might be led to becoming more conscious based on all sorts of various stimuli, and some of it might even be contradictory from source-to-source. Seems to me that it's all situational. Ramana was all about a pure, refined, direct question, probably best suited for people who are quite ripe. That's not to say that I don't completely disagree with the potential of a holistic approach, it's just that .. whoever that's going to "work" for, is who it will "work" for. People and cultures condition themselves into all sorts of hierarchies, tests and testing, much of it ritualized, most of it simply to serve the purpose of some sort of self-perpetuation. But that doesn't mean that all existential challenge is necessarily extraneous. Have you read any of the Zen stories with the dialogs between Masters and students? The Catholic Church is one hell of a study in extremes and contrasts, no doubt. The suffering it has caused at various times in history is completely undeniable. On the flip side, it's unlikely that there would have been any viable vehicle for this Jesus character, and his spiritual footprint, without them. And I honestly don't think that they're all bad, in material terms, either. It's a fascinating point to contemplate that they're the last vestige of the Roman Empire, and not in any sort of symbolic sense, but in a very material fact of continuity of culture. It was an inevitable culmination of the agricultural revolution that some group was going to be the best at slave-driving conquest and genocide. That a state-sponsored religion with a message of Universal love and unconditional forgiveness would follow from that was not only not so inevitable, but completely counter-intuitive. If some people get to the truth by literally stripping it all away then that's how they get there. To paraphrase ZD, THIS .. is full of surprises, without limits. Does it seem to me that a monastery is ever necessary to "get there"? No, but who am I to judge, and who is anyone who's never walked that path to know about the ones who have? It's interesting because the Buddha tried all that stuff to the extreme, none of it worked, and he eventually started teaching "the middle way". So, this discussion we're having here is a very old one, and will likely recur for as long as there are people who talk and write. Now, as for this: The solution is ultimately beyond ones control, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. God is the ultimate authority. You are more than capable of having a beautiful co creative relationship with the universe as a separate person once the idea that either exists independently of the other is flushed from the system. Truth speaks for itself, and there aren’t two truths. Belief in non separation brings with it some experiential effects, mostly disassociative and non fulfilling. Realizing non separateness is a different beast, and the experience in the wake of eradicating ones facade will open the hatch to a new way of studying co creation. Knowing when to step out of the way and when to take the reigns. When to pursue desire and how to notice self seeking. These are aspects of the natural state, that don’t need to be taught. Untruths need to be unlearned, and by adolescence we all believe a lot of stuff about the world and self that isn’t in harmony with either our experience but is in harmony with facade erection and growth.
Amen, to almost all of it. Falsity can and sometimes will be unlearned, but that is a process. Realizing the false, as false, can happen in a heartbeat. I’m going to revisit this post tomorrow, but the Ramana cloak is a very real thing happening in a slightly higher dimensional space than what I would call the lowest dimensional space of human consciousness. Meaning, Ramana is an upgrade, but if you think the guy had no unprocessed emotion you’d be kidding yourself. I’ve heard people call him The Godfather of modern spirituality. People are dumb. Anyway, not to hate on Ramana, like I said, he’s far more conscious than 99.9 % of peoples parents , so he is a helper. But God is Santa and he’s more like an elf helper. But again I’ll come back to this didn’t read through it yet.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 23, 2020 11:29:20 GMT -5
Did Ramana have sex after the age of 18? ... I don't know enough about his story to say with any authority, but I'd guess no. I see your point that he might not be able to relate to certain people because of that, but I don't think of asexuality as any sort of pathology. Can any spiritual "teaching" ever really be "complete"? What would that mean, really? Seems to me that various people are where they are and might be led to becoming more conscious based on all sorts of various stimuli, and some of it might even be contradictory from source-to-source. Seems to me that it's all situational. Ramana was all about a pure, refined, direct question, probably best suited for people who are quite ripe. That's not to say that I don't completely disagree with the potential of a holistic approach, it's just that .. whoever that's going to "work" for, is who it will "work" for. People and cultures condition themselves into all sorts of hierarchies, tests and testing, much of it ritualized, most of it simply to serve the purpose of some sort of self-perpetuation. But that doesn't mean that all existential challenge is necessarily extraneous. Have you read any of the Zen stories with the dialogs between Masters and students? The Catholic Church is one hell of a study in extremes and contrasts, no doubt. The suffering it has caused at various times in history is completely undeniable. On the flip side, it's unlikely that there would have been any viable vehicle for this Jesus character, and his spiritual footprint, without them. And I honestly don't think that they're all bad, in material terms, either. It's a fascinating point to contemplate that they're the last vestige of the Roman Empire, and not in any sort of symbolic sense, but in a very material fact of continuity of culture. It was an inevitable culmination of the agricultural revolution that some group was going to be the best at slave-driving conquest and genocide. That a state-sponsored religion with a message of Universal love and unconditional forgiveness would follow from that was not only not so inevitable, but completely counter-intuitive. If some people get to the truth by literally stripping it all away then that's how they get there. To paraphrase ZD, THIS .. is full of surprises, without limits. Does it seem to me that a monastery is ever necessary to "get there"? No, but who am I to judge, and who is anyone who's never walked that path to know about the ones who have? It's interesting because the Buddha tried all that stuff to the extreme, none of it worked, and he eventually started teaching "the middle way". So, this discussion we're having here is a very old one, and will likely recur for as long as there are people who talk and write. Now, as for this: The solution is ultimately beyond ones control, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. God is the ultimate authority. You are more than capable of having a beautiful co creative relationship with the universe as a separate person once the idea that either exists independently of the other is flushed from the system. Truth speaks for itself, and there aren’t two truths. Belief in non separation brings with it some experiential effects, mostly disassociative and non fulfilling. Realizing non separateness is a different beast, and the experience in the wake of eradicating ones facade will open the hatch to a new way of studying co creation. Knowing when to step out of the way and when to take the reigns. When to pursue desire and how to notice self seeking. These are aspects of the natural state, that don’t need to be taught. Untruths need to be unlearned, and by adolescence we all believe a lot of stuff about the world and self that isn’t in harmony with either our experience but is in harmony with facade erection and growth.
Amen, to almost all of it. Falsity can and sometimes will be unlearned, but that is a process. Realizing the false, as false, can happen in a heartbeat. Welp, the truth is what it is regardless of the time of day. Pontificating on absolute truth is a favorite past time in guru tradition. However, because of the incapacity of many of the teachers of yesteryear to recognize a compartmentalizations disorder, the unwillingness to process relative truth is quite common. This unwillingness comes coupled to a compensatory thought disorder, and in Ramana’s case id say there’s been quite a bit of disassociation from emotion rather than embracing and feeling. As such, I’d say there is a sort of taboo in non dual lineage about emotional processing. Maharaj used to get angry, and then recognize oh it’s just an old conditioned reaction from a person that’s not what he is. When I get angry, in contrast, I know there is pain underneath the anger, and the pain is released, which in turn frees my consciousness from future identification related to that unhealed emotion. This does wonders for law of attraction as well, as I don’t have to worry about self seeking through that emotion and so am far less likely to repel events or experiences that are in alignment with self realization. I’d say Ramana was adept in avoiding emotions, and I would agree that selfishness is helping others avoid their emotions. I’d be willing to bet Ramana was dealing with ptsd and also willing to bet he’d ‘gone out of body’ prior to mastering the arts of non duality. When a childhood defense mechanism morphs into the manner into which one approaches life, there’s nothing holistic going on. That hundreds or thousands or millions of people adore him for assisting themselves in avoiding their emotions isn’t impressive, it’s sad. Do I think Ramana and others believe they were helping people? Yes I do, and to a degree they were. But they were also harming them. As cloaking is not a loving thing. I sometimes overlook how neurotic and insane this world still is, and agree that breaking through dense conditioning may involve existential challenge. I’ve read Adyas dialogues, and can’t recall them off hand. I also enjoy Tolles discussion of Zen and what Jed had to say about it. Why do you ask? I was watching the Gypsy King last night there was an after show in which one announcer mentioned what he learned in church. He said that life gives you a crisis but after a crisis follows a process. If you don’t follow the process then you inevitably revisit the crisis. Stuff like that alerts me that some pastors know a thing or two about the divine, but whenever I listen to an actual sermon it inevitably rolls into some manifestation of a delusional complex due to attachment to scripture and what may or may not have happened a long time ago. Religion seems to be incorporating God psychology as time rolls forward, but this seems to be out of necessity and fear of loss to the new age crowd and always presents itself under a mind control thought binding umbrella for the time being. As far as the Romans, well I would also say the Mafia is also intricately linked to the Church as well. These unconditionally loving higher ups probably know a thing or two about putting a hit on someone’s life should a significant enough threat pose itself, and a lot of that stuff is tied into spirit cloaking. The issue is that I’m talking about liberating consciousness from mind identification. You’re talking about avoiding emotions to the point of inviting a cloak from guru tradition, living your life absent thought and emotion to a degree without healing emotion, while a spirit pool takes control of your mind and body, and then not surprisingly, often goes around trying to cloak unsuspecting tourists. These higher dimensional spirits are not even close To being the highest dimensional spirits, and your evacuated spirit body is literally in a malignant condition. When they leave you cancer ridden for death they don’t care, because law of attraction will bring them right to a new vessel that also wants to avoid its emotions. our discussion here is whether we can free consciousness from mind identification without processing emotion. The truth is that you can’t to the degree you’ve already created your own complex. Then peeps say oh well that’s your truth but my truth is that I Basically never think and I feel lots of bliss my way so my way is right and true. And then you get cancer or your body starts to deform and you say it’s Gods will. Point being that giving your mind over to a spirit pool, even Buddhist Hindu or Christian, comes with an energetic consequence directly tied to unhealed emotion. Maharajs nonsense denial ilsted above is a perfect example. And FWIW, if maharajs spirit continued over after death, he wold have realized his error quite rapidly, as I get the sense he is currently a celestial, whatever that means.
|
|