Nonsense

[Gem]

Originally Posted by athribiristan

That's fine......I didn't either for a very long time. Really, in the classical sense of God I still don't. Have you read my thread 'My Journey'? I think you'll find I'm not the big hairy monster you think I am.

Of course you aren't a monster. I haven't read that thread and TBH I probably won't. It's just that your thing is God, and it's not my thing. The problem we face is it spiritual social norm which is assuming, and under that fabrication it seems acceptable to project God (assuming we're 'spiritual' people), and there's a whole host of jargon and terminology which is thown about as though we all know what it means. It all upholds the fabrication which is dependent, not genuine relationships, but on the motivations and missions that retain positions roles and norms which are the very structure of that social fabrication. It's fundamentally violent and oppressive, which is why some people think I'm derisive what I simply refuse to be positioned.

The example is when one claims to be a spiritual guide and is all loving toward everyone or a bringer of truth or instructor of practice or whatever role it might be. If I really believe that position that has been declared, where do I fit in respect to that? How do I define myself so that the declared position can be held as true, and by so positioning myself thusly, has not 'their truth' now become mine? It's a relationship between 'self images' which is the socially constructed ego.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Hi Kaimi,

You just nailed the problem! We each have our own thoughts that we choose to believe in. Which should give you an idea that maybe you shouldn't believe your thoughts. That maybe if everyone is thinking so differently about the same experience then maybe we need to find practices that can take us beyond thought. Some techniques like The Work by Byron Katie are very effective at cutting through mind stories.

There are ways to improve our lives.

Katie used the 'thought validation' method (The Work), which is good in it's way, but in a more thorough and holistic approach, 'thought validation' is one part of a holistic therapeutic strategy. One example I'm aware of is, in CBT thought validation is used along with thought reframing (redefining the perspective) and a number of other measures that take a multidimensional approach. Not that CBT is entirely holistic, but it's far wider in approach that Katies one dimensional 'solution'. It's funny that spiritual people think they've invented a revolutional therapy when it's only a page or two taken from something far more in depth.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by octopusonpaper

Watching the breath for 2 minutes right? I'm a newb and just wanted confirmation.

1. not sure where they reside - do you mean all in the head?
2. is integration the goal? Integrating the emotion? And into what? The heart? Or soul?
(I don't actually know what a soul is tbh)

But I do know what an ego is! Sorry OP for going off topic.

Back to topic.

It is almost as if the posts (from both sides of the coin) mean exactly the same thing, just interpreted and verbalised differently. Aka, the same nonsense. To surmise, there is truth and the holder of that is God. In that, perhaps we will have the truth once dead?

It's not really off topic. It serves the topic well, because the motivation to tell you what to do and you to obey that is demonstrated, but Octopus, this isn't based on you and what you are doing; there's no interest in that. The interest is only tell you what to do and you obey.

You ceded a position 'I'm a newb' and made a place for someone to position themselves, and JB filled the position of the expert because that's his motive, so you listen to what he tells you and obey the instruction, but what about you and what you think and what you're doing? No one cares, but in my case, I'm actually far more interested in what you have to bring than prescriptive meditation advice which is often repeated.

LOL... I think you are assuming I'm going to obey. I do have my own mind. As for positioning, I've done a Masters paper on that, I know all about how one cannot not be positioned

[Gem]

Originally Posted by octopusonpaper

LOL... I think you are assuming I'm going to obey. I do have my own mind. As for positioning, I've done a Masters paper on that, I know all about how one cannot not be positioned

I was assuming that a power paradigm was being set up, and as you were being told what to do in an instructive manner, you were being disempowered... at the same time, by classifying the noob, the position of spiritual guide was created, and many would gladly take that place. I thought is was a well illustrated example of how this whole charade is set up. It really means that you aren't in a place so you don't assume the placement of others. You have a lot to bring. You bring ears to the music, so to speak.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I would say Yes there is a method that can be used by all. The effectivness of it compared to ones depth is a different manner.

What does "The effectiveness of it compared to ones depth is a different manner" mean?

I have posted an extensive method one how to integrate emotions on this site. Everyone can do it. No it is not fast food effective... nothing is but everyone can use it.


Now then, there is a difference between one liking a method and a method working. Which is what you are trying to mince words when saying "here's something that I have found useful" quote.

Saying "I have found this method useful" means what it says = that it helped do what I needed to do. If I had meant liked, I would have said liked. But, "I found useful" allows the implication that you might not find it useful, whereas, this will have a positive impact on your life, negates the reality that it might not have any impact at all on the others life.

Everyone can watch there breath. Two minutes of it will positivly impact your life if you do it a bunch of times a day. A fact studied and proven.

I've meditated for many years, and quite quickly enter into this state. The breathing method is one that I personally find distracting. A study does not prove that it "will have a positive impact on your life"

Again not everyone will be ready for all of the techniques. I have seen many who just the talk of energy practice and they start to get all emotionally upset. That means they have a huge obstruction, a block with regard to energy practices. It still doesn't mean that energy practices would not be beneficial to them :)

The very fact that you are having to give reasons why it doesn't work for everyone does more to prove that it isn't a method that positively impacts everyones life. Why not just say that? rather than trying to say it's because the person isn't ready? By doing so you imply that the person isn't right for the method, and they must change themselves to fit the method... rather than the method isn't right for that particular person and they might benefit more from trying something else instead.

So again, the techniques are universal and proven. A persons reaction to a practices doesn't mean it is not effective. Just that it may not be right for them at that time. Yet the practice, the techniques and the common experiences surrounding the practice are still there and real.

Lol, yes a persons reaction to a method does prove it's not effective - if it has no effect on the person... it means just that - the method isn't effecting them, thus it isn't effective.

How do you remove obstructions? Even though now i feel energy flowing through my heart highlighting the obstructions the technique I use is the same one I used before i could feel energy or obstructions in the body. Once you get past emotions being of the mind and find where they really reside you know there really is only one method to integrating them. Different approaches that all do the same thing.

This last bit is for another time.

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Gem

Of course you aren't a monster. I haven't read that thread and TBH I probably won't. It's just that your thing is God, and it's not my thing. The problem we face is it spiritual social norm which is assuming, and under that fabrication it seems acceptable to project God (assuming we're 'spiritual' people), and there's a whole host of jargon and terminology which is thown about as though we all know what it means. It all upholds the fabrication which is dependent, not genuine relationships, but on the motivations and missions that retain positions roles and norms which are the very structure of that social fabrication. It's fundamentally violent and oppressive, which is why some people think I'm derisive what I simply refuse to be positioned.

The example is when one claims to be a spiritual guide and is all loving toward everyone or a bringer of truth or instructor of practice or whatever role it might be. If I really believe that position that has been declared, where do I fit in respect to that? How do I define myself so that the declared position can be held as true, and by so positioning myself thusly, has not 'their truth' now become mine? It's a relationship between 'self images' which is the socially constructed ego.

Again, you pretend to understand me. My thing is not God. My thing is that everybody gets to have their thing. I find God to be a useful concept in sharing aspects of my thing. I'm perfectly happy to discuss things without reference to God. The intention, and this is what you miss, was never to force God on you. You get lost in words and miss the intention. I'm just a human.....having experiences.....and sharing them. Whatever 'intention' you want to imagine I might have for doing so is your business. I have never claimed to be anything special, I don't claim to be an Indigo child, or an Orion, or a spiritual guru. They say that a smart man learns from his experience, and a wise man learns from the experiences of others. You could say I'm a very smart man, with many experiences.....looking for wise men.

And as for the bolded statement, and please notice that it ends with a question mark. I assume you are soliciting my opinion:

Reality is subjective. Leaving God out of it.....lets just stick to good old fashioned science and reasoning. Science tells us that everything is energy....pretty sure that was Einstein. Turns out he was wrong about a few of the details but he got the broad strokes right and energy=mass*C is pretty clear proof that even what we think of as solid matter is only energy. Then there was that other thing he talked about......um relativity.....yeah. Everything is relative to the observer. I think there is a general failure to understand how deep that concept goes.

So, everything being energy, which we now learn from quantum mechanics is really just vibration. All of it. Now we know certain things about the way the universe functions....we call them Laws of Physics, they are reasonably well tested through observation and experimentation. Our understanding is sufficient to launch probes into space and use the gravity of planets and moons to steer them. One of those laws tells us that an object in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. An object, being a complex interaction of energy waves leads us to a wave in motion will tend to stay in motion (and maintain its frequency) unless acted upon by another wave.

We have studied waves, we know a lot about them. So much that we can make things like lasers and hi fidelity digital sound. We can predict how waves will interact with each other. That is because a wave tends to behave in a consistent way. A sound at X decibals will reflect off this surface and reverberate thusly. Most waves are static, that is they do not change. What science is now telling us, and what has been talked about in pretty much every religion ever, is that our thoughts are also vibration, they are also energy. The logical conclusion is that our thoughts must interact with other waves. However, our thoughts have a unique quality....we can change them. That is to say, that through the conscious manipulation of our thoughts we can also change HOW they interact with those other waves. Meditation anyone?

People spam thoughts all over the place, mostly without thinking. These thoughts are causal. People are literally influencing the world with their thoughts. So we find that, to whatever degree we are willing to own our thought process we can shape the world around us. With that realization comes the reciprocal; we must also respect the rights of others to shape the world. I choose to carry this idea to its limit and assume that ultimately we can create any reality we choose, and that every choice is valid. So for you there is no God. I believe that to be absolutely true and would never try to convince you that there is, or that you should believe in him. For me, there is a God when I choose to consider that there is and there is not when I choose to consider that there is not. And for my good christian friends with whom I have just finished bible study there is a jealous judgemental skygod sitting in heaven. It is that way because they believe it.

Which brings us around to the question: Allow them to have their truth, at the same time allow yourself to have yours. One truth does not invalidate another, only ego seeks to validate its own truth or feels threatened by the truth of another person. Often the most profound epiphanies I've had came from reconciling seemingly opposing truths. Let go of the mentality that for you to be right they have to be wrong. Everyone can be right, from their own perspective......which is all any of us ultimately have. Until we find other perspectives. Ooops meditation again.

[Kaimi]

I am starting to like you gem. This thread has gotten infinitely more entertaining on philosophical level. Kudos to all involved. The only thing that bothers me a little is that at no point thus far have you given an inch on your stance.

Anyone offering a conflicting view or a modicum of what I shall dub, living room wisdom, (the truths one has come by on their own and hold to be true or are otherwise some belief held by each individual) is automatically shut down and classified by yourself as false wisdom, or phallic stroking, or a power play to assert dominance or the elevation of one over another.

You are clearly intelligent, and articulate, but still refuse to accept that anyone has anything of value to contribute to even just a single individual.

Truth is, there is folly and foolishness in the unwavering belief that one can not learn from another. A master can spend their lives teaching everything they know to a student, but on the day the student inadvertently and unknowingly gifts the master with something the master never thought of or heard or just offers a new perspective. On that day the student becomes the master. Even for just a fleeting moment.

This example simply illustrates the close relationship and oneness of both roles. Neither of which is truly elevated in any sense.

[jonesboy]

Everyone can only walk their path.

Yes, I am saying the same thing and showing a path where you say that is wrong to do.

I don't think that's accurate and it constitutes a false promise, but it's possible that a technique could be part of a holistic approach for those to whom it it is suitable.

But you don't know it's not true either :)

What people say in the general sense by way of conversation isn't telling anyone to do anything; it's topical only and might be an expanded perspective as it is a means of listening and response, but because the 'telling' is a strong motivator, the listen/respond mode of conversation is uncommon.

What does that have to do with my comment?

I think you speak very directly and are coating things with honey, which I appreciate, so if I may comment personally, I think you're inclined toward instructor expert persuasion and you maintain that position by imposing and deriding. When a person speaks of their personal practice, you tend to tell them to do something else rather than talk about what they have said.

I don't impose my practice on anyone. I have provided links to many methods I don't use and have encouraged many on their pursuit. I will admit to jumping on you for numerous reasons :)

I don't even practice breath meditation but here I am arguing for it :)

I would like an example of where I have talked about something else instead of the topic at hand.

That's the 'normal' thing to do here, and in a wider context, the normal thing to do is 'try to help'. People think that means have a solution or provide an answer, but that's due to lack in a deeper understanding of listening carefully and actually understanding it empathically from their position. The prescriptive solutions advice and answers is the 'norm' so it goes by invisibly whereas in real terms it's very misguided... for this reason... when one pretends to be the expert on other peoples problems, their needs and how they 'should' go about solving them, one becomes dominant and disempowers the other.

The difference is I know I can help. I can reach out and calm a mind. I can help ease the pain of a broken heart. I can help someone release there obstructions, provide the space and the layer of depth to progress. To have a happier life. Before that I have been helping people learn the finer points of meditation for years now.

All your talk of empathy is you believing in a mind story that makes you feel good. Truly helping someone is being able to provide the light that allows for the release of such issues. Attachments to things that we believe will make us happy.

If help is real, there isn't advice or solutions or answers, and there's no assumptions, because making their own determinations as they find a way of their own through what is fundamentally uncertain is the only real way of empowerment.

How can someone find there own way if they don't know what options are available to them?

How do you meditate? Well I would provide a couple of different methods as I usually do.

How do you deal with emotions? I have provided a method that is thousands of years old and I usually provide a link where many others share there experience using it.

What is providing space and layers of depth? Anyone can come to my website and join me in chat. I am always willing to help someone go light so that they to can provide space and help others.

Good conversation Gem. Thank you for your honesty. You know you have an open invitation :)

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

Katie used the 'thought validation' method (The Work), which is good in it's way, but in a more thorough and holistic approach, 'thought validation' is one part of a holistic therapeutic strategy. One example I'm aware of is, in CBT thought validation is used along with thought reframing (redefining the perspective) and a number of other measures that take a multidimensional approach. Not that CBT is entirely holistic, but it's far wider in approach that Katies one dimensional 'solution'. It's funny that spiritual people think they've invented a revolutional therapy when it's only a page or two taken from something far more in depth.

CBT? Can you provide a link to this method?