The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Point. But our conversation is not fictional.

Do you dismiss it as easily?

I consider a conversation to be contextual, like 7L says something and I reply in context. You didn't address anything anyone said at all, and just threw in a cute story, which of course is easy, because it requires no attention, self awareness or deeper truthfulness in oneself.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I consider a conversation to be contextual, like 7L says something and I reply in context. You didn't address anything anyone said at all, and just threw in a cute story, which of course is easy, because it requires no attention, self awareness or deeper truthfulness in oneself.

Aw that's not very nice, Gem, nor do I think it is accurate by any means - especially in this case.

Perhaps this is why you find spiritual discussions difficult? That you need people around you who you think mirror you? And that your judgement of others, is contrary to your other claims (of not existing, of calling people imaginary, of not having or believing in your judgements etc). Sorry if that offends - it's just my perception of the situation. There might be a better way if you would be open to guidance (from anyone lol)

I personally laugh that people are so stuck within themselves, that they can't imagine anyone or anything being so remarkably better, different and excelled in this lifetime. A spiritual master is not someone who is just "nicer" or simply a social activist/warrior, a spiritual master has plumbed the depths of spiritual knowing (which is transcendent and beyond ordinary knowing) and provides guidance, insight, and example to those who come before them.

Of course, YMMV.

BT

Originally Posted by Gem

I consider a conversation to be contextual, like 7L says something and I reply in context. You didn't address anything anyone said at all, and just threw in a cute story, which of course is easy, because it requires no attention, self awareness or deeper truthfulness in oneself.

Honestly Gem, I thought there was a good chance you would find some value in that "cute story". Ah well, that's okay. People generally aren't particularly good listeners.

But you want to talk about what you said. I aim to oblige, believe it or not, so let's talk about what you said.

From post 111:

Originally Posted by Gem

...the conversation impels us to see ourselves...

Does the (spiritual?) conversation impel us to see ourselves?

To me, conversation is about listening, as you mention later, and expression. There are activities that impel us to see ourselves - such as reflection, introspection, etc. - but I do not follow you that conversation, even 'spiritual' conversation (and I have no idea what you mean by that), impels us to see ourselves. For example, you just stated "the conversation impels us to see ourselves" and I was momentarily confused. Am I in a conversation with myself? Perhaps later, when I reflect on your words, as I am doing now, but that is a personal conversation with myself.

I consider conversation with anyone else an exercise of relationship, a sort of 'window' two people open up between each other for purposes of sharing. The truer the subject, whatever it is, naturally the less contentious it will be, even in reflection.

To me, in any conversation, one listens. One may reflect, and one may respond. That is expression. Honestly I just have to conclude that I am completely misreading your statement here. I just don't follow it.

Originally Posted by Gem

...we may consider that contention arises from some sort of personal reactivity.

Yours, or mine? 'Personal reactivity' is one possible reaction. One can also simply observe, comprehend, empathize, discern, love, laugh, cry, etc.

The dictionary defines 'contention' with the words 'opposition', 'competition', 'contest', 'strife', 'dispute'. In conversation, contention therefore arises from an intention of manipulation or resistance of one form or another. This is a very specific interpretation of 'spiritual' conversation, IMO, peculiar to your ideas about it, but you go on...

Originally Posted by Gem

...So the difficulty makes it contentious (should contention arise), and not the other way around.

I think the assumption of meanings and motivations imposed over interaction, of manipulation or resistance in this case, can certainly make it contentious.

I am listening to what you are saying, and though you give some CYA caveats, as I listen to what you are saying very carefully, what you are telling is a story of what you imagine is in someone's head in the context of 'spiritual' conversation, and I can't help but wonder how that must affect your 'spiritual' conversations. Given that context and understanding, it certainly makes the genesis of post 131 crystal clear, don't you agree? I mean, you may disagree, but that is what you just said, so what else am I to think?

I do not see any compulsion in any conversation. I see opportunity. Statement and response are entirely selective, entirely open. Yes, opportunities may be realized, or they may be missed, or maybe something in between. Realizing the opportunity of really seeing each other through that window would be what I would think of as a spiritual conversation success. Anything else is interrogation or projection.

I have opened a window of conversation by joining this discussion, but so far I have been told that spiritual conversation is innately contentious, and that (I) just threw in a cute story, which of course is easy, because it requires no attention, self awareness or deeper truthfulness in oneself. Well, true to expectations so far our conversation has been most difficult, and I feel neither one of us is seeing each other at all through that window. You probably don't recognize what I have illustrated of you, nor do I recognize what you have portrayed of me.

My response to you was to give an example of what non-contentious spiritual conversation looks like. In the "cute story" is all the potential for contentiousness and difficulty one could hope for, and it does not happen. Instead the two men see each other and accept each other, both in their difference and their sameness. You seem to feel conversation is all about oneself. I feel it is about relationship, therefore the success is in seeing the other. If we learn something about ourselves from that, fine, but it's not generally the actual task at hand. That is the task of self reflection. Yes, it is just a story, but I assure you it can and does happen, with the right intentions. I hoped my reply would illustrate that point without contentiousness or difficulty, but looking at the conversation so far, it's easy to see how that was such a remote possibility.

[blossomingtree]

So .. do we have a conclusion yet on if spiritual conversations are difficult or not?

This is my take:

Spiritual - needs a common definition. Are we talking about spirituality? Because is anything not spiritual?

Or are we talking about spiritual topics in which case there can be different opinions, but not necessarily contention. In this case, there can be some difficulty in that people have different ideas about spirituality as Jyotir alluded to in an earlier post, I believe. Some people believe spirituality is about interesting experiences, others believe it is about God truth/actualization, and others believe it is about human activism, it seems. I subscribe to the Rumi/Buddha/Sri Nisargadatta/mystics route most probably

Or are we talking about (which is what I suspect OP is referring to) conversations with a spiritual mindset in place - and apparently this is also subject to interpretation.

My vote would be spiritual conversations are conversations which are about spiritual topics and some people if they have a practice, can apply that to themselves.

I get where Gem is coming from in terms of his wish for deep reflection, self-awareness and kindness, but to be fair, this is a thing one demands of oneself, not imposes on others or judges others for in their perceived lack. That might ease the contention, in my opinion, in OP's case.

I personally saw Kioma as helping Gem out, but that was just me.

Contention - mostly due to different ideas about spirituality and or projections of ego, perceived or actual.

Thanks.

BT

[hallow]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Aw that's not very nice, Gem, nor do I think it is accurate by any means - especially in this case.

Perhaps this is why you find spiritual discussions difficult? That you need people around you who you think mirror you? And that your judgement of others, is contrary to your other claims (of not existing, of calling people imaginary, of not having or believing in your judgements etc). Sorry if that offends - it's just my perception of the situation. There might be a better way if you would be open to guidance (from anyone lol)

I personally laugh that people are so stuck within themselves, that they can't imagine anyone or anything being so remarkably better, different and excelled in this lifetime. A spiritual master is not someone who is just "nicer" or simply a social activist/warrior, a spiritual master has plumbed the depths of spiritual knowing (which is transcendent and beyond ordinary knowing) and provides guidance, insight, and example to those who come before them.

Of course, YMMV.

BT

I've been"stuck". But more in terms of "where do i go from here". I am learning to take my time an not to rush it. I am learning to practice what i have learned and when my soul is ready ill be moved to the next stage. Like a verse in a song about a person who went crazy. "He reached for the secret to soon" its from a pink floyd song. "Shine on you crazy Dimond"

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Honestly Gem, I thought there was a good chance you would find some value in that "cute story". Ah well, that's okay. People generally aren't particularly good listeners.

Oh yes I find value in it - it tells that each has a view and there are different ways of viewing the same experience, and one is not right and the other wrong because they say different things.

But you want to talk about what you said. I aim to oblige, believe it or not, so let's talk about what you said.

From post 111:

Does the (spiritual?) conversation impel us to see ourselves?

To me, conversation is about listening, as you mention later, and expression. There are activities that impel us to see ourselves - such as reflection, introspection, etc. - but I do not follow you that conversation, even 'spiritual' conversation (and I have no idea what you mean by that), impels us to see ourselves.

It means if we aren't aware of ourselves and what we do, then we talk about high spiritual things, but don't walk the talk.

For example, you just stated "the conversation impels us to see ourselves" and I was momentarily confused. Am I in a conversation with myself? Perhaps later, when I reflect on your words, as I am doing now, but that is a personal conversation with myself.

In effect it is a conversation we have with ourselves because it is only the sensational affect that we perceive. In my own case, you talk to me and I hear it, but also listen. Listening involves knowing what you say and the affect it has on me, so I feel things going on in myself, throughout conversations. That can reveal certain things, like, I might start imagining you and describe that imagined figure but I already know I only externalise my own reactivity to my own sensation, so it all collapses and the imagined you dissolves away as I notice what is really going on with myself.

I consider conversation with anyone else an exercise of relationship, a sort of 'window' two people open up between each other for purposes of sharing. The truer the subject, whatever it is, naturally the less contentious it will be, even in reflection.

Yes that sounds about right.

To me, in any conversation, one listens. One may reflect, and one may respond. That is expression. Honestly I just have to conclude that I am completely misreading your statement here. I just don't follow it.

Yes there is no truth to what I say, so it can't be used to draw any conclusions. It's only meaning being conveyed, merely a reflective gesture, and it isn't underpinned by a 'truth' which we can etch in stone and say, 'that's right'.

Yours, or mine? 'Personal reactivity' is one possible reaction. One can also simply observe, comprehend, empathize, discern, love, laugh, cry, etc.

In your case yours, and in my case mine.

The dictionary defines 'contention' with the words 'opposition', 'competition', 'contest', 'strife', 'dispute'.

Dictionaries make approximations without nuances of context, so it's the basic definition of a word, but not its meaning in use.

In conversation, contention therefore arises from an intention of manipulation or resistance of one form or another. This is a very specific interpretation of 'spiritual' conversation, IMO, peculiar to your ideas about it, but you go on...


I think the assumption of meanings and motivations imposed over interaction, of manipulation or resistance in this case, can certainly make it contentious.

Well said. Very succinct.

I am listening to what you are saying, and though you give some CYA caveats, as I listen to what you are saying very carefully, what you are telling is a story of what you imagine is in someone's head in the context of 'spiritual' conversation, and I can't help but wonder how that must affect your 'spiritual' conversations.

I know Jesus/Buddha/sages are only icons I imagine from stories I have heard. It's also obvious that someone who never heard of Buddha has no image of him at all, let alone an especially elated one.

Given that context and understanding, it certainly makes the genesis of post 131 crystal clear, don't you agree? I mean, you may disagree, but that is what you just said, so what else am I to think?

My mind isn't working in agree/disagree frameworks at all. It's only making meaning. I think we become convinced that the truth is like an answer and we are trying to make conclusions all the time, but we are only playing a knowledge game, because we ultimately cling to the known, and this constant clinging compels us to a mind that always draws conclusions so we continually have something to cling to.

I do not see any compulsion in any conversation.

We could only notice compulsion in ourselves, and if we do notice it, it's no longer a compulsion. It's the difference between mindless reactivity and awareness of the responsive process.

I see opportunity. Statement and response are entirely selective, entirely open. Yes, opportunities may be realized, or they may be missed, or maybe something in between. Realizing the opportunity of really seeing each other through that window would be what I would think of as a spiritual conversation success. Anything else is interrogation or projection.

Well said.

I have opened a window of conversation by joining this discussion, but so far I have been told that spiritual conversation is innately contentious,

I didn't say that. I said contention arises out personal reaction to the difficulty. Basically, contention is within ourselves when we become highly reactive to any difficulty. The angst and argument we recognise as contention is only the manifest expression of it. This means any contention we express is a good reminder of what's going on with ourselves.

and that (I) just threw in a cute story, which of course is easy, because it requires no attention, self awareness or deeper truthfulness in oneself. Well, true to expectations so far our conversation has been most difficult, and I feel neither one of us is seeing each other at all through that window. You probably don't recognize what I have illustrated of you, nor do I recognize what you have portrayed of me.

I already know anything I imagine of you has nothing to do with you at all, and vice-versa. Difficulty isn't like a 'truth I set in stone'; it's a meaning that is qualified within a greater context. It's not 'the truth'. It's just a meaning. In that I specify things that are difficult, the meaning is contextualised - not 'right'.

My response to you was to give an example of what non-contentious spiritual conversation looks like. In the "cute story" is all the potential for contentiousness and difficulty one could hope for, and it does not happen.

To me it's like a Sunday school story and we can all be fuzzy-wise, like, because it's 'sages' - though the meaning is very relevant none-the-less.

Instead the two men see each other and accept each other, both in their difference and their sameness. You seem to feel conversation is all about oneself. I feel it is about relationship, therefore the success is in seeing the other. If we learn something about ourselves from that, fine, but it's not generally the actual task at hand. That is the task of self reflection.

So I say self-awareness, which means awareness of what is going on with you (or in my case, me). What I'm saying isn't really a self-reflective gesture per se, because if there is some reflection then you are aware of self-reflection as it happens. So I alluding to 'awareness of' moreso than any activity of which one is aware (more like awareness of all activity regardless of what it is).

Yes, it is just a story, but I assure you it can and does happen, with the right intentions. I hoped my reply would illustrate that point without contentiousness or difficulty, but looking at the conversation so far, it's easy to see how that was such a remote possibility.

Oh, no contention, but considering the elaborate nature of your post and it's deeper implications, it did demand significant attention and careful consideration, and took a while to respond to... so I wouldn't classify it as 'easy'. It was one that required me to look a little more deeply, so I really appreciate that.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by hallow

I've been"stuck". But more in terms of "where do i go from here". I am learning to take my time an not to rush it. I am learning to practice what i have learned and when my soul is ready ill be moved to the next stage. Like a verse in a song about a person who went crazy. "He reached for the secret to soon" its from a pink floyd song. "Shine on you crazy Dimond"

With respect and admiration for your path, hallow.

[blossomingtree]

Nice pivot Gem, as always. Good job, man, good job but one day, someone's gonna ask, where's the honesty, man, where's the honesty.

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hallow

I've been"stuck". But more in terms of "where do i go from here". I am learning to take my time an not to rush it. I am learning to practice what i have learned and when my soul is ready ill be moved to the next stage. Like a verse in a song about a person who went crazy. "He reached for the secret to soon" its from a pink floyd song. "Shine on you crazy Dimond"

Pink Floyd are my 'sages' teehee, and Imma gun put on that song right now.

[hallow]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

With respect and admiration for your path, hallow.

love the picture! I guess everyone is searching for something. A combination of this thread and an other has me thinking. I like that.