Mental illness and God

[Asclepius]

CBT, mindfulness and so-called spiritual practices seem to help people if their trauma came later, after the initial duality split and the formation of personality. If people suffer infant trauma younger than 18 months, then the trauma can also be wound up in their initial duality split, and no therapy will help. For those people, they have to recognize the one true reality, which is the origin point of every human, and then reverse engineer the entire thing back to the very beginning.

You see, every born human has the duality split. It happens to all of us. It's a necessary part of being a physical embodiment. In that sense, we are all delusional. For most people without trauma, this delusional life looks like... 'I'm going to do all the things that I think will make me happy, like go to school, get a job, get married, maybe do some drugs and party along the way, have kids, retire" etc. Whether they know it or not, they are trying to reunite with their point of origin through the human activities that create resonance for them. The resonance is a sign that non-duality is the real thing going on... it's ever present and a non-happening, non-event. It feels blissful, at home, it's all you could ever want. However, people misattribute resonant reality with the external objects around them that "make them feel this way". So they chase the objects and activities that "give them" the feeling. Meanwhile, the resonance points to the only thing that's real. This misattribution is the root of all never-ending human desire.

But when someone also has early infantile trauma, they are also living in a nightmare rabbit hole where duality is informed by the holographic memory of abuse. Imagine entering the world as pure, unlimited conscious awareness that has no concept of a separate "me/I". This is all of us in the beginning. We are just clear, unclouded awareness. Then, through pure stimulus, duality begins to form. There is something here, and something over there; you are you, and I am me. Then you're given a name, and subsequent stories about "who you are", and the narrative layers commence. This plus experience informs the mind-body identity complex. This is how it normally proceeds for most people.

Now imagine that during this time, the infant is neglected during a time when they can't regulate their own nervous system or emotions, or they are even beaten. When infants cry, they have to be picked up and held because they need the parent's nervous system to regulate their own. Babies can't do this. Instead they will keep crying until the suffering is so extreme that they dissociate into mind (later becoming intellectual types) or the ether (later becoming the psychic types). Both are states of disembodiment. The illusion of duality will form with abuse intertwined with it. This pre-dates the mind-body identity complex and personality. It's why people with this kind of trauma can't do talk therapy; because when you're talking, it's the personality talking, and babies less than 1 year old don't have that. The personality-ego is trying to work with something that pre-dates its very existence. The same is true with somatic therapy. People think they can trigger the body to release this stuff, but it also doesn't work.

So if CBT works for you, it means your trauma happened after the personality-ego identity complex formed. It means that something happened "to you" and this "you" has a memory of it which it can process by adding another story and then looking for proof that the new story is valid. For pre-duality trauma, it didn't happen to "a you", it happened while pure consciousness was artificially splitting into duality. To heal it, you have to go pre-duality, which is present awareness, which is actually the only reality underneath Samsara, which is the reality of this very present moment.

 

[Asclepius]

"So if CBT works for you, it means your trauma happened after the personality-ego identity complex formed. It means that something happened "to you" and this "you" has a memory of it which it can process by adding another story and then looking for proof that the new story is valid. For pre-duality trauma, it didn't happen to "a you", it happened while pure consciousness was artificially splitting into duality. To heal it, you have to go pre-duality, which is present awareness, which is actually the only reality underneath Samsara, which is the reality of this very present moment."


Seriously, man, you do have good intention but then, get on a major ego trip and spout some gigantic unsubstantiated nonsense sometimes. - like what is quoted - can you give any sources to your enlightened rhetoric? Seriousy could you do a respect to yourself and other posters and cease to post such nonsense, seriously.

 

[Asclepius]

Check yurself ffs

 

[Foreigner]

"So if CBT works for you, it means your trauma happened after the personality-ego identity complex formed. It means that something happened "to you" and this "you" has a memory of it which it can process by adding another story and then looking for proof that the new story is valid. For pre-duality trauma, it didn't happen to "a you", it happened while pure consciousness was artificially splitting into duality. To heal it, you have to go pre-duality, which is present awareness, which is actually the only reality underneath Samsara, which is the reality of this very present moment."


Seriously, man, you do have good intention but then, get on a major ego trip and spout some gigantic unsubstantiated nonsense sometimes. - like what is quoted - can you give any sources to your enlightened rhetoric? Seriousy could you do a respect to yourself and other posters and cease to post such nonsense, seriously.

Sure... anything from the Advaita tradition will expound upon this way better than I could. Swami Sarvapriyananda has some good videos online. You may also be interested in the works of Nasargadatta and AH Almas. Nobody is "enlightened" and nobody holds all the answers. You have to listen to various speakers who are awakened and have insight, and see where each of them land for you. The idea is not to follow somebody else, but to permit their words to open your own window of resonance.

Enlightenment is a myth, and no I won't stop posting. You are free to place me on ignore or simply ignore my content. Cheers.

 

[Vastness]

Nobody is "enlightened" and nobody holds all the answers. You have to listen to various speakers who are awakened and have insight, and see where each of them land for you. The idea is not to follow somebody else, but to permit their words to open your own window of resonance.

Nobody is enlightened except for you and others who can see the idea of enlightenment for what it really is - a delusion. ?

Has it occurred to you Foreigner that your absolute confidence in the objective reality of your own position is really not too dissimilar to any number of unshakeable - and (dare I say it!) irrational - beliefs about the nature of reality. I refer to those held both by extremely traditional adherents of Abrahamic religions, the New Age "spiritual bypassers" that you have decried earlier in this thread, and those who are not religious or spiritual, but still cling stubbornly and in wilful ignorance to other destructive ideas about the world, and specifically what is important in the world (I am referring of course to your struggle to understand how to "deal with stupid people").

Human reason is inherently fallible, and at it's most fundamental level even the most basic human logic is based on unverifiable premises, and I say that obviously, as someone who is generally a strong proponent of science and reasoned, logical thought. But ultimately we cannot be completely sure of anything even when it comes to the physical world, and especially in the realm of philosophy, spirituality and metaphysics.

 

[Foreigner]

Nobody is enlightened except for you and others who can see the idea of enlightenment for what it really is - a delusion. ?

Has it occurred to you Foreigner that your absolute confidence in the objective reality of your own position is really not too dissimilar to any number of unshakeable - and (dare I say it!) irrational - beliefs about the nature of reality. I refer to those held both by extremely traditional adherents of Abrahamic religions, the New Age "spiritual bypassers" that you have decried earlier in this thread, and those who are not religious or spiritual, but still cling stubbornly and in wilful ignorance to other destructive ideas about the world, and specifically what is important in the world (I am referring of course to your struggle to understand how to "deal with stupid people").

Human reason is inherently fallible, and at it's most fundamental level even the most basic human logic is based on unverifiable premises, and I say that obviously, as someone who is generally a strong proponent of science and reasoned, logical thought. But ultimately we cannot be completely sure of anything even when it comes to the physical world, and especially in the realm of philosophy, spirituality and metaphysics.

Nobody becomes enlightened. There's nothing in here to enlighten. Enlightenment implies going from somewhere to somewhere else. It implies a hierarchy. Enlightenment is a spirituality trap.

To the mind, the truth of reality is necessarily irrational because the mind arises of duality whereas original consciousness is non-dual. So I agree with you 100%, it is irrational to discuss this.

Reason is highly fallible, yes. That's why the faculty of reason is not the end game here. Reason can only take one so far, as a platform from which to propel into the truth. Reason provides an elementary structure for approaching the work. Vedanta is a knowledge path. It asserts that we can approach this by remedying ignorance, but knowledge itself is eventually not enough. Eventually you must relinquish knowingness because cerebral knowingness is attachment of the mind.

It's not about certainty or answers because there are ultimately no questions. You want to reason this out with words but words are not going to lead you there. To recognize the truth you actually have to stop trying "to get it". The truth is already here. It's you in this present moment. It's not a "something" for mind to fixate on and agree/disagree over.

This is actually the antidote to "seeking", which people think is going to get them something: everlasting happiness, enlightenment, the truth of the universe, etc. You don't get anything for recognizing it. You just arrive at the ground of existence.

 

[Vastness]

Eventually you must relinquish knowingness because cerebral knowingness is attachment of the mind.

This makes a lot of sense of course, but I believe you to be doing a little spiritual bypassing yourself.

This insight is itself a property of mind and as such just as likely to be an incomplete or even incorrect picture of reality.

Yet, you seem to have elevated this insight to possessing some property of absolute truth itself, and to have taken it as carte blanche to dismiss whatever systems of belief or spiritual or psychological practices that you see fit.

You might reasonably argue that much of spirituality is just a waste of time, but that's not what you're saying - you have repeatedly made quite concrete statements dismissing other spiritual ideas as absolutely false, and your own interpretation of existence - or, really, just the idea you like most - as, obviously, true.

The statement "there is no truth", or "truth is unknowable", or however you would like to phrase it, is not itself exempt from having a quality of truthfulness or falsehood.

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

"I know that I know nothing"
supposedly socrates
this has been driving me nuts since childhood as it seems the more i experience the more it seems i am in a house of mirrors of sorts... which can be fun at times but mostly confusing: which is intentional, imo.
odds are i will be here tomorrow but superstitions can be detrimental to mind and body.

 

[Foreigner]

This makes a lot of sense of course, but I believe you to be doing a little spiritual bypassing yourself.

Nope... I'm not. Maybe I am not describing it well enough because I am not adept at teaching this kind of thing, but it's the opposite of spiritual bypassing. It's total and utter presence with nowhere else to go. Spiritual bypassing is an attempt to escape what is, it's trying to go from here to there. When you recognize reality, it cuts through absolutely everything: your sense of self, your identity complexes, the appearances that you think are "the world", all of it. It leaves you with utterly nowhere to go but right here.

This insight is itself a property of mind and as such just as likely to be an incomplete or even incorrect picture of reality.

Insight is an event that occurs on the experience level, meaning it is temporal and not transfixed. However I disagree that insight always comes from mind. People who meditate on a regular basis can tell you that insight can spontaneously arise and dissolve while the mind is quiet.

Yet, you seem to have elevated this insight to possessing some property of absolute truth itself, and to have taken it as carte blanche to dismiss whatever systems of belief or spiritual or psychological practices that you see fit.

Everything on the experience level, including ideas about subjective truths, arise from and dissolve into non-duality; however, even this statement is not entirely accurate. The whole thing is seamless, it's not broken into discrete events.

Non-duality is the only reality. It's like the waves of the ocean arising and dissolving. Every wave can be an idea about truth but they all dissolve back into non-duality.

I'm talking about the ground from which Samsara arises, not an idea that carte blanches all other ideas. The origin point is a non-idea. It's a non-event. It's via negativa. It cannot be divided or subsumed. It is already perfect.

It's not about "what I see fit", it's about the truth.

You might reasonably argue that much of spirituality is just a waste of time, but that's not what you're saying - you have repeatedly made quite concrete statements dismissing other spiritual ideas as absolutely false, and your own interpretation of existence - or, really, just the idea you like most - as, obviously, true.

You're trying to reason this out with mind and that's why you think I'm doing things that I'm not doing.

It's not about true or false. It's not about "something". It's not even about arising and dissolving. It's about what is.

The second you start talking about it, it's already lost. You have to shut up your monkey mind to see it.

It's not interpretive. It's not an event. It's just what's real.

The statement "there is no truth", or "truth is unknowable", or however you would like to phrase it, is not itself exempt from having a quality of truthfulness or falsehood.

In a dualistic world, this statement is true... because the mind will always find a way to continue parsing things into further "somethings". That's why the mind can never get what I'm using language to point to.

What's impossible to convey is that this isn't a mental masturbation thing. I didn't formulate some idea in my brain and then decide I need to force it down everybody's throat. I'm talking about the non-duality that everything on the experience level - what you call the word and all its activities - arises from and dissolves into... a non-duality that's impossible for ego to see because ego isn't real. I'm ego talking to you right now; you're ego talking to me right now. Ego is a projection, it's not real, which is why all this talking is not going to lead you to the answer.

You need to (and I mean this in a tongue and cheek way) absolutely shut the fuck up and stop trying. This isn't something that you "get". Trying to get it is what blinds you from seeing.

 

[Vastness]

Nope... I'm not. Maybe I am not describing it well enough because I am not adept at teaching this kind of thing, but it's the opposite of spiritual bypassing. It's total and utter presence with nowhere else to go. Spiritual bypassing is an attempt to escape what is, it's trying to go from here to there. When you recognize reality, it cuts through absolutely everything: your sense of self, your identity complexes, the appearances that you think are "the world", all of it. It leaves you with utterly nowhere to go but right here.

Maybe you're not describing it well enough, but I feel I understand more clearly whatever you are trying to convey from your most recent posts than I have done previously. In my own estimation though, the issue is not with your description.

Admittedly, people use the term "spiritual bypassing" to refer to different things, perhaps, than I intend it to refer to here. To me it appears that having decided/realised/understood that there is nowhere else to go, you've decided to just stop trying to understand anything - at least, understand it any further than you do already - and this includes the value of things in more mundane arenas of human life, such as the value of other spiritual or psychological practices in just helping people cope with being alive.

To me this is clearly manifesting as a nihilistic egotism which you seem quite blind to (because of course, you've let go of concepts like ego), in which because you are 100% confident in your beliefs and/or understanding of reality, everyone should just listen to the truth you speak, everyone who doesn't is stupid, just stop trying to get better, don't bother, there's nothing to discover, there's nowhere to go. Your comments about CBT and mindfulness are really a perfect example of this. CBT and mindfulness aren't about getting closer to enlightenment or absolute truth (even if some people might like to frame them that way - because sometimes it is helpful to do so), and the fact that you read a study on CBT and it confirmed your preconceived bias about it's pointlessness compared to just "getting that there's nothing to get", doesn't really reflect at all on the value of CBT, or mindfulness, or any other spiritual practice or discipline, with respect to the goal of helping people recover from undesirable psychological states... whether or not this is worth doing or matters is really beside the point.

Insight is an event that occurs on the experience level, meaning it is temporal and not transfixed. However I disagree that insight always comes from mind. People who meditate on a regular basis can tell you that insight can spontaneously arise and dissolve while the mind is quiet.

It's not surprising to me that you think in this way, but I suspect this is likely to be an unsurpassable wall in our difference of opinion - or rather, perspective.

The mind is never truly silent. In my view, you are making a distinction where there is none. Insight, thought, feeling, emotion and every other category of experience that anyone could imagine arises within consciousness, and as such is inextricably a part of mind. The mind itself is itself a self-recursive phenomenon within this same space of experience. I suspect that one could question the definitions of "mind", "consciousness" and obviously "insight" and "experience" here but I find it hard to imagine one could do so in such a way that would challenge the essence of my point... please feel free to prove me wrong.

Non-duality is the only reality. It's like the waves of the ocean arising and dissolving. Every wave can be an idea about truth but they all dissolve back into non-duality.

I'm talking about the ground from which Samsara arises, not an idea that carte blanches all other ideas. The origin point is a non-idea. It's a non-event. It's via negativa. It cannot be divided or subsumed. It is already perfect.

It's not about "what I see fit", it's about the truth.

This, and really everything following, is just pure religious faith. Substitute "non-duality" for Jesus. Like faith, if one doesn't have it, if it doesn't spontaneously develop, it cannot be taught or truly understood. Maybe you're right about this! But it's not self-evident to me just as it isn't self-evident that an Abrahamic god created the world... and to bring things briefly back to the thread topic, unless I develop some kind of organic mental illness, I can't see that it ever will be.

 

[Foreigner]

To me it appears that having decided/realised/understood that there is nowhere else to go, you've decided to just stop trying to understand anything - at least, understand it any further than you do already - and this includes the value of things in more mundane arenas of human life, such as the value of other spiritual or psychological practices in just helping people cope with being alive.

There's nothing wrong with trying to cope with life. There's nothing wrong with anything that anyone does or doesn't do. Life in its appearances can be intense and strange... it takes a lot to make it work.

For me, coping is not enough. I want to know the truth of reality.

You meditate and you feel great for 10 minutes, then you stub your toe and you're back in a rabbit hole state. I'm not interested in "coping".

To me this is clearly manifesting as a nihilistic egotism which you seem quite blind to (because of course, you've let go of concepts like ego), in which because you are 100% confident in your beliefs and/or understanding of reality, everyone should just listen to the truth you speak, everyone who doesn't is stupid, just stop trying to get better, don't bother, there's nothing to discover, there's nowhere to go. Your comments about CBT and mindfulness are really a perfect example of this. CBT and mindfulness aren't about getting closer to enlightenment or absolute truth (even if some people might like to frame them that way - because sometimes it is helpful to do so), and the fact that you read a study on CBT and it confirmed your preconceived bias about it's pointlessness compared to just "getting that there's nothing to get", doesn't really reflect at all on the value of CBT, or mindfulness, or any other spiritual practice or discipline, with respect to the goal of helping people recover from undesirable psychological states... whether or not this is worth doing or matters is really beside the point.

You're being really defensive and I'm not sure why.

I'm not a nihilist. I don't believe in existential nothingness. Emptiness doesn't mean that life is meaningless. I am describing the arising and dissolving of phenomena and their source. I'm not saying that nothing matters or that people shouldn't bother.

I also clearly said how and why CBT has its uses. CBT is next to useless for infantile trauma, it has been established in the scientific literature. The success rate is very low for people who were abused as infants. I know the reason why and I expounded upon it.

You're projecting a lot of personal identity complexes and perceptions on me that are misattributions. I understand why you're doing this, and if you need to do it then fine, but nothing you say is reminscent of where I'm coming from. You describe a person who is avoidant and living a hollow, empty, meaningless existence that wishes to override all other perspectives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you want to work with psychological states, then be my guest. That's what most people are doing whether they use modern psychology or "spirituality". For most people, it's perfectly fine to patch up their view of Samsara and their discursive self-narratives so that they can go back living in the illusion. Nothing wrong with it. Samsara can be a pleasant experience if that's what you're after.

For people who have spontaneously awakened to the fact that we're living in Samsara, I can't unsee it. I can't pretend that this is all real and just go back into illusion land. It doesn't work, I've tried. It doesn't mean I'm better than you or I'm enlightened or some shit. I had no control over it. I don't control anything. Once you see it's an illusion, if you're earnest and honest, you naturally start wondering about how all this works, what is driving it, and what it's arising from. You can't help it. One thing leads to the next, to the next... until the ultimate answer of: only one thing is happening.

You're asking for scientific proof of this, which is kind of absurd. Science doesn't care about this topic. Science considers the world to be real and concerns itself with formulating natural laws to describe it. Science doesn't address ontology, which is the crux of the whole thing.

Some people who awaken get scared shitless because their ego can't handle the prospect of its own inevitable implosion... knowing that everything they thought mattered is not actually real, including their self-concept. They bawk at the knowledge and retreat into an accommodating life where they know it's not real but they pretend it's still real. I feel that this fear is fundamentally what underlies most people who are attacking me. To acknowledge the truth means the death of all concepts and for most human beings, including "spiritual people", it's a step too far. And that's fine... because you don't get anything for awakening. There's no prize. You just get a chance to see what's real.

It's not surprising to me that you think in this way, but I suspect this is likely to be an unsurpassable wall in our difference of opinion - or rather, perspective.

You haven't really described where I'm coming from but you seem certain in your view, so okay.

The mind is never truly silent. In my view, you are making a distinction where there is none. Insight, thought, feeling, emotion and every other category of experience that anyone could imagine arises within consciousness, and as such is inextricably a part of mind. The mind itself is itself a self-recursive phenomenon within this same space of experience. I suspect that one could question the definitions of "mind", "consciousness" and obviously "insight" and "experience" here but I find it hard to imagine one could do so in such a way that would challenge the essence of my point... please feel free to prove me wrong.

I have no desire to prove anything to you. It's not my place. Besides, I can't prove something to you that you couldn't discover for yourself with some personal practice. Again, you're locked in a battle of minds and mind is not capable of grasping what I'm talking about, because to recognize it you have to stop all grasping activities.

To begin with a full on description of how mind and consciousness are linked but not the same thing, is a very long intro... one that you could find out by learning some basic meditation techniques and inward observations.

This, and really everything following, is just pure religious faith. Substitute "non-duality" for Jesus. Like faith, if one doesn't have it, if it doesn't spontaneously develop, it cannot be taught or truly understood. Maybe you're right about this! But it's not self-evident to me just as it isn't self-evident that an Abrahamic god created the world... and to bring things briefly back to the thread topic, unless I develop some kind of organic mental illness, I can't see that it ever will be.

The difference between Jesus and the non-dual state is that the non-dual state can be recognized by any person living on the planet without a middle man like a church to tell them about it.

But that's okay... if you think I'm being faith based, then to you that's exactly what's happening. I have no wish to change your mind. I didn't partake in this thread with the idea of converting anyone, I am just sharing what I have discovered in my explorations of consciousness. I understand that not everyone is going to recognize what I'm talking about - the vast, vast majority of humanity won't - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When non-duality manifests as a dualistic human life and then develops subsequent self-reinforcing discursive identity layers, most people are content to try and live out that dualistic life. For some of us, trauma was so severe and from an early age that we can't get at it by spinning new stories through CBT. We need to go back to the point of origin, beyond the "inner child", beyond the first identity, to the origin point. Once you recognize the origin point, you realize that's the only point that is real, and the only thing that underlies the entire "experience" of being human.

An ego asking for proof of this is incredibly ironic.

You make the fundamental error of assuming that because I can describe the technology of all this, that I have abdicated it. i.e. the fact that I know ego is holographic means that I have completely dismissed it. Not true. You can't dismiss your own ego. It's seemingly there, and has a lot to say. The ego can be brought into alignment through recognition of core reality, but it can never understand its non-dualism. That's why this cerebral back and forth with you can only lead nowhere. You want proof of something that ego can never really understand.

I've told you what is required, yet you persist in continuing to raise assumptions and spin stories. And that's okay. There's nothing wrong and nothing that has to be done. You just keep doing you.

 

[Vastness]

Ehhhh, pot said to kettle, anyone....

I don't mean to come across as defensive, if I do I apologise, I don't see it that way myself and I'm not sure what you think I'm defending but I'll keep an eye on where my intentions could be misconstrued. As I see it, I'm just highlighting what I see to be (possible) contradictions in your point of view, and (possible, unintentional) manifestations of these contradictions in the way you come across, which I am evidently not the only one to observe.

Am I projecting? Maybe. We usually see most clearly in others what we most struggle with in ourselves. I do try to keep this in mind as often as I can and I'll check myself while I think about what you've said, which I most surely will, whether you think I'm being defensive or not I do occasionally enjoy trying to parse the meaning in your posts, whether the difficulty is in how you describe it (not sniping at you, just referencing something you yourself said) or in my own ability or willingness to understand it (both quite possible).

Again, I do feel unfortunately we've reached a wall dividing our viewpoints which neither one of us will likely be able to surpass. As you say however, if this is the case that's fine, that's reality and we'll both just keep doing us. I will just respond to a few things however.

You're asking for scientific proof of this, which is kind of absurd. Science doesn't care about this topic. Science considers the world to be real and concerns itself with formulating natural laws to describe it. Science doesn't address ontology, which is the crux of the whole thing.

I'm not asking for scientific proof of anything, this is an assumption you're making. I understand why you would make this assumption because of the general position we take within this forum but in the context of this topic I believe you are mistaken. I could say you're projecting, even... But it's not important if you are or not.

You haven't really described where I'm coming from but you seem certain in your view, so okay.

I was responding to a very specific section of your post regarding "insight" coming from a place other than mind. I'm not certain in my view - it's just what seems most likely based on my own experience and interpretation of reality. If you don't want to argue the point, then don't and please don't feel that I'm trying to force an argument out of you... we will both inevitably continue to state our case and respond to the other as we see fit.

I have no desire to prove anything to you. It's not my place. Besides, I can't prove something to you that you couldn't discover for yourself with some personal practice. Again, you're locked in a battle of minds and mind is not capable of grasping what I'm talking about, because to recognize it you have to stop all grasping activities.

To begin with a full on description of how mind and consciousness are linked but not the same thing, is a very long intro... one that you could find out by learning some basic meditation techniques and inward observations.

Again, I don't expect you to prove anything to me, honestly I don't feel that the word "proof" has too much meaning within the context of this discussion. But my understanding of mind is not derived from pure scientific logic, but from direct observations of mind and consciousness through basic and less basic meditation techniques and inward observations. My own personal practice has just not lead me to the same conclusions as yours have to you, which is to be expected of course, the key word being "personal". I believe honestly that some of our disagreements here may be purely semantic, but if you're not interested in analysing it any further, then of course, don't feel obligated.

The ego can be brought into alignment through recognition of core reality, but it can never understand its non-dualism. That's why this cerebral back and forth with you can only lead nowhere. You want proof of something that ego can never really understand.

I've told you what is required, yet you persist in continuing to raise assumptions and spin stories. And that's okay. There's nothing wrong and nothing that has to be done. You just keep doing you.

Again, no proof requested or required of anything, just an effort to present an alternative viewpoint. Regarding ego, I thought it was fairly obvious I wasn't saying you had dismissed it, quite the opposite, but again, it's not important. Perhaps I am assuming and spinning stories - obviously I don't believe this to be the case, but I've tried to be extra careful in this post to say as little as possible about what you are doing, and just to explain what I'm doing.


I find this an interesting topic but I find it also pretty tiring to discuss anything with you, when, as I perceive it, your approach is simply to just relentlessly browbeat any attempts to offer an alternative perspective into submission, and not allow even the barest admission that perhaps, just perhaps, you might not "get it" quite as well as you think you do. Any counterarguments are based on incorrect assumptions, misinformed or outright malicious projections, coming from defensiveness, fear or the truth, etc, etc. If this was any other area of discussion this would be considered a somewhat manipulative and intellectually dishonest method of argument at best... but because of the topic at hand, even that accusation is without teeth, because the truth you speak is just "above" intellectual analysis.

Not saying this is what you're actually doing - I have no more insight into true reality than anyone or anything else - this is just my perception, and that's as much as I can offer.

I know it's all you can offer too, so as you say, that's OK, we'll both keep being each other.

 

[Foreigner]

Ehhhh, pot said to kettle, anyone....

I don't mean to come across as defensive, if I do I apologise, I don't see it that way myself and I'm not sure what you think I'm defending but I'll keep an eye on where my intentions could be misconstrued. As I see it, I'm just highlighting what I see to be (possible) contradictions in your point of view, and (possible, unintentional) manifestations of these contradictions in the way you come across, which I am evidently not the only one to observe.

Am I projecting? Maybe. We usually see most clearly in others what we most struggle with in ourselves. I do try to keep this in mind as often as I can and I'll check myself while I think about what you've said, which I most surely will, whether you think I'm being defensive or not I do occasionally enjoy trying to parse the meaning in your posts, whether the difficulty is in how you describe it (not sniping at you, just referencing something you yourself said) or in my own ability or willingness to understand it (both quite possible).

Again, I do feel unfortunately we've reached a wall dividing our viewpoints which neither one of us will likely be able to surpass. As you say however, if this is the case that's fine, that's reality and we'll both just keep doing us. I will just respond to a few things however.


I'm not asking for scientific proof of anything, this is an assumption you're making. I understand why you would make this assumption because of the general position we take within this forum but in the context of this topic I believe you are mistaken. I could say you're projecting, even... But it's not important if you are or not.


I was responding to a very specific section of your post regarding "insight" coming from a place other than mind. I'm not certain in my view - it's just what seems most likely based on my own experience and interpretation of reality. If you don't want to argue the point, then don't and please don't feel that I'm trying to force an argument out of you... we will both inevitably continue to state our case and respond to the other as we see fit.


Again, I don't expect you to prove anything to me, honestly I don't feel that the word "proof" has too much meaning within the context of this discussion. But my understanding of mind is not derived from pure scientific logic, but from direct observations of mind and consciousness through basic and less basic meditation techniques and inward observations. My own personal practice has just not lead me to the same conclusions as yours have to you, which is to be expected of course, the key word being "personal". I believe honestly that some of our disagreements here may be purely semantic, but if you're not interested in analysing it any further, then of course, don't feel obligated.


Again, no proof requested or required of anything, just an effort to present an alternative viewpoint. Regarding ego, I thought it was fairly obvious I wasn't saying you had dismissed it, quite the opposite, but again, it's not important. Perhaps I am assuming and spinning stories - obviously I don't believe this to be the case, but I've tried to be extra careful in this post to say as little as possible about what you are doing, and just to explain what I'm doing.


I find this an interesting topic but I find it also pretty tiring to discuss anything with you, when, as I perceive it, your approach is simply to just relentlessly browbeat any attempts to offer an alternative perspective into submission, and not allow even the barest admission that perhaps, just perhaps, you might not "get it" quite as well as you think you do. Any counterarguments are based on incorrect assumptions, misinformed or outright malicious projections, coming from defensiveness, fear or the truth, etc, etc. If this was any other area of discussion this would be considered a somewhat manipulative and intellectually dishonest method of argument at best... but because of the topic at hand, even that accusation is without teeth, because the truth you speak is just "above" intellectual analysis.

Not saying this is what you're actually doing - I have no more insight into true reality than anyone or anything else - this is just my perception, and that's as much as I can offer.

I know it's all you can offer too, so as you say, that's OK, we'll both keep being each other.

Glad that we can agree to disagree on the mental level.

I don't see any point in discussing it further. Take care.

 

[TripSitterNZ]

@Vastness if you want the ultimate cold truth try 5-meo-dmt you will quickly discover via direct experience the fundamental truth of the self ego the universe and god

 

[Asclepius]

Sure... anything from the Advaita tradition will expound upon this way better than I could. Swami Sarvapriyananda has some good videos online. You may also be interested in the works of Nasargadatta and AH Almas. Nobody is "enlightened" and nobody holds all the answers. You have to listen to various speakers who are awakened and have insight, and see where each of them land for you. The idea is not to follow somebody else, but to permit their words to open your own window of resonance.

Enlightenment is a myth, and no I won't stop posting. You are free to place me on ignore or simply ignore my content. Cheers.

I do not want or wish for you to stop posting - I actually like your posts - however, my gripe is with the fact that you often post (especially with ideological type posts) using the 'royal', 'we', or, use a very objective tone that appears to mimic others work, that you do not reference; this I personally find difficult to tolerate/respect - as in you often post subjective opinion with an objective style which, to me, appears disingenuous ( as you post opinion as fact without taking ownership).

If something has reached/affected you personally, I'm not knocking it - however, if you discuss it as if, it is factual, it translates as incredibly narcissistic. We are all partial to this; however, over the years I have noticed that you tend to make posts that are very authoritarian in tone, despite the fact that they are concerned with 'spiritual', or 'philosophical' themes - this, to me seems odd. Surely, if you were concerned with a subject you would be transparent about what you know/dont know, or are curious about - like the rest of us - and not portray yourself as an oracle of knowledge/wisdom? (unless you were, like me! )

 

[Foreigner]

I do not want or wish for you to stop posting - I actually like your posts - however, my gripe is with the fact that you often post (especially with ideological type posts) using the 'royal', 'we', or, use a very objective tone that appears to mimic others work, that you do not reference; this I personally find difficult to tolerate/respect - as in you often post subjective opinion with an objective style which, to me, appears disingenuous ( as you post opinion as fact without taking ownership).

If something has reached/affected you personally, I'm not knocking it - however, if you discuss it as if, it is factual, it translates as incredibly narcissistic. We are all partial to this; however, over the years I have noticed that you tend to make posts that are very authoritarian in tone, despite the fact that they are concerned with 'spiritual', or 'philosophical' themes - this, to me seems odd. Surely, if you were concerned with a subject you would be transparent about what you know/dont know, or are curious about - like the rest of us - and not portray yourself as an oracle of knowledge/wisdom? (unless you were, like me! )

Would it help you if I stated my intention? My intention is not to be authoritarian at all. That's not actually where I'm coming from when I write it.

Also, in terms of accusations that I am not posting my source material... I have no source material, just the results of my inner inquiry.

I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree. I have no expectation really.

Where you claim that I am transparently displaying certain traits such as narcissism, I would argue I am just serving as a mirror for your own narcissism, which I am fine to do. A lot of people seem triggered by displays of knowledge or wisdom. Blaming me for this is actually quite irrelevant. I am just in my process and I don't claim ownership over anything else that anyone else does. For example I don't think of myself as an oracle whatsoever, yet you seem fine projecting that quality unto me and then trying to fight against it. Rather than examine me, maybe you should be examining your own triggers?

All that said, this thread is not about me personally. We are discussing ideas. If you'd like to discuss ideas further, I'm open to that. If anything I've said doesn't ring true to you or you wish to question it, I am definitely open to that. However, complaining that I have not posted sources or that I'm a narcissist actually adds nothing to the discussion because it's discussing my character rather than ideas. My character, however, is not the topic at hand and I would really appreciate it if you stopped making it about me personally, only because it's a waste of energy.

Is there something about what I've said that you would like explained more in depth? I am happy to.

 

[Foreigner]

Like... you said I'm full of shit earlier. Okay. How am I full of shit? What specifically have I said that strikes you as untrue?

I'd rather talk about that than how you think I'm a narcissist, because such accusations are neither here nor there.

 

[Asclepius]

^ Everyone is; we all are- don't panic!

 

[Asclepius]

Would it help you if I stated my intention? My intention is not to be authoritarian at all. That's not actually where I'm coming from when I write it.

Also, in terms of accusations that I am not posting my source material... I have no source material, just the results of my inner inquiry.

Yes, I think the intention is honest and is relatable- in a world of online comments without human intent; I think this is a valuable injection of genuineness that people crave - whether is taken by all is not guaranteed but it is needed. I guess that what you stated above is where I think, is confusing and where their difference between "statement/personal ideas in blogs and question in forums", again this is confusing as it may cross with blog articles, in my opinion; so posters may not be open to dialogue. That is not to state about pedantics, but about what one is communicating - boards/forums on here are meant to be about addressing questions or, posing them - hence creating dialogue. What you say is great to read but it comes across ( to me, at least) as closed, opinion; thus closing down communication ( not that there isn't quality to it - there is but because it's stated as fact - it has that effect if you get me?

( also, I know that it will possibly be hijacked by trolls but that, is to be dealt with overtly and where other mods come in/others - all part of the process of keeping things less dumb)

I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree. I have no expectation really


Where you claim that I am transparently displaying certain traits such as narcissism, I would argue I am just serving as a mirror for your own narcissism, which I am fine to do. A lot of people seem triggered by displays of knowledge or wisdom. Blaming me for this is actually quite irrelevant. I am just in my process and I don't claim ownership over anything else that anyone else does. For example, I don't think of myself as an oracle whatsoever, yet you seem fine projecting that quality unto me and then trying to fight against it. Rather than examine me, maybe you should be examining your own triggers?

Expectation is important ( even if it is denounced - that does not matter - it is important!) Well, to state that you are, "just serving as a mirror for your own narcissism", is a fallacy as you don't know what my narcissism is - I may be reacting to your words, the words of someone else projected onto what you are saying; some other poster, or individual, or my inner dialogue but you really cannot presume that you are an oracle of mirroring anyone's narcissism - that in itself is highly narcissistic; as it presumes you have some role of glory, where you post in a forum and can psychically, wield that function on another - that is a bit silly, tbh - although I understand, fundamentally how that happens with spontaneous reaction to posts; but that is NOT an indicator of anything but basic, reaction.

All that said, this thread is not about me personally. We are discussing ideas. If you'd like to discuss ideas further, I'm open to that. If anything I've said doesn't ring true to you or you wish to question it, I am definitely open to that. However, complaining that I have not posted sources or that I'm a narcissist actually adds nothing to the discussion because it's discussing my character rather than ideas. My character, however, is not the topic at hand and I would really appreciate it if you stopped making it about me personally, only because it's a waste of energy.

Is there something about what I've said that you would like explained more in depth? I am happy to.

Ideas stem from and are folded-into, self - no idea/concept is ever completely, objective(unless scientifically done; even that is questionable) so, that does not make sense to me.
We all have narcissism but the point I raised is that you appear in complete denial of any subjective input toward (some of your posts) (not singling you out on this but especially on this forum) leads me to question; why are you so detached from what you say- its that simple. Maybe you have your reasons; however if you could interject with personal accountability/experience it would lend more credence to what readers may glean, I think your posts would carry more weight ( on the flip side - any attacks would be more personal but resilience is grown and not bequeathed eh? ) You have written some epic posts tbf and I am just nagging you so that you continue in that vein but with more openness to other dialogue; that can build on your posts.

 

[Foreigner]

Yes, I think the intention is honest and is relatable- in a world of online comments without human intent; I think this is a valuable injection of genuineness that people crave - whether is taken by all is not guaranteed but it is needed. I guess that what you stated above is where I think, is confusing and where their difference between "statement/personal ideas in blogs and question in forums", again this is confusing as it may cross with blog articles, in my opinion; so posters may not be open to dialogue. That is not to state about pedantics, but about what one is communicating - boards/forums on here are meant to be about addressing questions or, posing them - hence creating dialogue. What you say is great to read but it comes across ( to me, at least) as closed, opinion; thus closing down communication ( not that there isn't quality to it - there is but because it's stated as fact - it has that effect if you get me?

( also, I know that it will possibly be hijacked by trolls but that, is to be dealt with overtly and where other mods come in/others - all part of the process of keeping things less dumb)



Expectation is important ( even if it is denounced - that does not matter - it is important!) Well, to state that you are, "just serving as a mirror for your own narcissism", is a fallacy as you don't know what my narcissism is - I may be reacting to your words, the words of someone else projected onto what you are saying; some other poster, or individual, or my inner dialogue but you really cannot presume that you are an oracle of mirroring anyone's narcissism - that in itself is highly narcissistic; as it presumes you have some role of glory, where you post in a forum and can psychically, wield that function on another - that is a bit silly, tbh - although I understand, fundamentally how that happens with spontaneous reaction to posts; but that is NOT an indicator of anything but basic, reaction.



Ideas stem from and are folded-into, self - no idea/concept is ever completely, objective(unless scientifically done; even that is questionable) so, that does not make sense to me.
We all have narcissism but the point I raised is that you appear in complete denial of any subjective input toward (some of your posts) (not singling you out on this but especially on this forum) leads me to question; why are you so detached from what you say- its that simple. Maybe you have your reasons; however if you could interject with personal accountability/experience it would lend more credence to what readers may glean, I think your posts would carry more weight ( on the flip side - any attacks would be more personal but resilience is grown and not bequeathed eh? ) You have written some epic posts tbf and I am just nagging you so that you continue in that vein but with more openness to other dialogue; that can build on your posts.

I'm open to dialogue about what I've written... but again, you keep going back to my personal psychology, which is not only irrelevant but is inaccurate.

Are you going to talk about what I've written or just keep talking about me?

My posting style is never going to change, especially not for you. So... you can either accept that or move on, as far as I'm concerned. I'm here to discuss philosophical and spiritual ideas, not have my personality shrinked by a pseudo-psychologist. It's inappropriate and also uninvited.

You said earlier that I am full of shit but have still failed to elaborate on why. If you can't discuss the ideas then you should just recuse yourself because I have no interest in justifying my existence to you.