The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

In my case, being a forum nerd, there are numerous times when someone attacks me personally. This isn't the same as them disagreeing or having a totally contrary view. People disagree all the time and see things totally differently to me. The attack is when they start the personal assertions, derision, insults, insinuations and undermining my integrity. I used to take the defensive position and refute and correct them as your example expressed, but then I realised how I was manipulated into the defensive self-justifying role by them. After I realised that, I stopped refuting, correcting and self justifying. I basically reply without any self-reference at all. This is because I am the one who decides to talk about myself, when I do, what I disclose, how much I disclose, if anything. That's why I have voice. I'm the one who gets to say, and no one else has that right. Now, that is my power, but it's not a power of influence or coercion. It's the power of self-determination.

All I mean is you get speak for and of yourself, and no one else has any right to do so, and more than that, you can if an when you wish to, but you don't have to - it is entirely your own prerogative. This is your right to Yes and No, which is the fundamental ethic of consent.

To be fair that seems more ideologically driven.

Its using the language or speaking techniques of said ideology or perhaps a philosophical point of view.

Where is the need to state that a person has choices or options really since its a given? - we don't walk around confirming that we are breathing or reminding each other that we just blinked. I'm going to the supermarket because I choose to & nobody has the right to tell me where to go or what to buy ...

It's policing oneself incase of accusation or malice.

For me that is more of a manipulation by others than correcting their errors, perhaps only once.
Correction itself is also not a defensive action.

Perhaps when following ideology or philosophical ideals to the letter it is important to be reminded that the (I) exists at all. The requirement to constantly confirm who is in charge, that individuals have rights are a constant reminder that the belief system isn't governing every action & word - yet it quite clearly holds sway.

Consent is a noble thing - it is an invention of humans however.

"Tiger!! yee wilst cease thine feast - for I consent not on the subject of being eaten"


Our personal rules & decrees are inventions, someone or something also has choice .. the choice to ignore our words.

.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

There's a lot of evidence of people being harmed by verbal abuse, gossip/slander and so forth. It sometimes leads to physical harm, like suicide, eating disorders etc.

There's a difference between talking from different views and denigrating a person. Sometimes people conflate a contrary view with a personal affront, but these are not the same thing at all.

This seems to conflate the contrary view with the personal remark. Two different things. The contrary view doesn't make anyone the subject of discussion. The personal remark does.

Exactly.

If we take it from the standpoint of intent, then we might see how an accuser, name caller, insinuator harbours the intent to hurt the accused feelings, and that will to hurt is malice. It very often succeeds, as we know that children who were subjected to a rearing environment of negative personal remarks (like you're stupid, you're worthless, and similar slurs), adopt it into their self narrative, which brings on low self-esteem.

In my case, being a forum nerd, there are numerous times when someone attacks me personally. This isn't the same as them disagreeing or having a totally contrary view. People disagree all the time and see things totally differently to me. The attack is when they start the personal assertions, derision, insults, insinuations and undermining my integrity. I used to take the defensive position and refute and correct them as your example expressed, but then I realised how I was manipulated into the defensive self-justifying role by them. After I realised that, I stopped refuting, correcting and self justifying. I basically reply without any self-reference at all.

This is because I am the one who decides to talk about myself, when I do, what I disclose, how much I disclose, if anything. That's why I have voice.
I'm the one who gets to say, and no one else has that right.

Now, that is my power, but it's not a power of influence or coercion. It's the power of self-determination.


All I mean is you get speak for and of yourself, and no one else has any right to do so, and more than that, you can if an when you wish to, but you don't have to - it is entirely your own prerogative.

This is your right to Yes and No, which is the fundamental ethic of consent.

Gem -- Agreed, full stop. Your response is so clear and concise that I will no doubt reference it in the future.

This circle of belonging where the spiritual conversation consciously takes place is where humanity begins to explore how to move beyond verbal attacks and forceful negation or crossing of boundaries...and into a place of mutual respect and lovingkindness.

It is a place much of humanity has never lived and which will feel foreign to them. To many, it will feel foreign in a good way, affirming and liberating. To some, it will feel foreign in a threatening way, as the rising equity of others is perceived as a loss of imagined or real control for some individuals. Still to others, the transparency and authenticity of real engagement with self and others may also feel threatening or simply just strange and new. And there may be other responses still...but the very fact that the conversation can occur and is occurring more consciously with regard to consent and inclusion is IMO great progress nonetheless.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

To be fair that seems more ideologically driven.

Its using the language or speaking techniques of said ideology or perhaps a philosophical point of view.

Where is the need to state that a person has choices or options really since its a given? - we don't walk around confirming that we are breathing or reminding each other that we just blinked. I'm going to the supermarket because I choose to & nobody has the right to tell me where to go or what to buy ...

It's policing oneself incase of accusation or malice.

For me that is more of a manipulation by others than correcting their errors, perhaps only once.
Correction itself is also not a defensive action.

The basic point is, you are impelled to speak of yourself by someone else who makes a personal assertion. Fir example, just to illustrate, if someone made a personal inquiry you could say you'd prefer not to answer. If you do answer, then it's you that decides to make yourself the subject. On the other hand, if someone makes an accusation, you become the subject because they make you the subject.

Perhaps when following ideology or philosophical ideals to the letter it is important to be reminded that the (I) exists at all. The requirement to constantly confirm who is in charge, that individuals have rights are a constant reminder that the belief system isn't governing every action & word - yet it quite clearly holds sway.

Consent is a noble thing - it is an invention of humans however.

Consent is within the realm of ethics, and ethics is a very deep issue. Some, such as Socrates, linked ethics to virtue, and in so doing linked wisdom to love, so although there is an ideological component in that codes of conduct exist within social paradigms, no one invented love, intent, trust, and other such human attributes we regard as virtuous.

That why we have a real living thing that gives arising to what we call 'loving-kindness'. The clinker is, we can't so much work on being being more loving and kind, because the very craving for more disturbs our equanimity of mind. Loving-kindness, as Buddhists call metta, arises from the pure outpouring at the core of each of us, and indeed, all of nature. The reason we experience so much malice and greed in the world is people harbour emotional contents which inhibit the free flow of nature's essense. Often these are called emotional blocks, and we all have these because we form them as part of survival of the organism. At some stage, though, these stuck things have to pass through, simply because it's true that all things pass. I don't invent it, no one can make it otherwise. It's just natures way.

At some stage we have to resolve these things, which involves opening the closed doors to the psychic spaces we hold them in, thus illuminating them to conscious awareness in which they arise, pass and dissolve away. Upon clearing these spaces of their emotional contents the light comes in to the 'clear space'. When this process continues and significant blocks are cleared through, that loving kindness starts to bubble up through the 'heart' as real felt sensation.

So, what we call 'loving kindness' isn't a personal thing. It's endemic to nature and cultivated not through any direct effort, but through the process of purification the life-form.

"Tiger!! yee wilst cease thine feast - for I consent not on the subject of being eaten"

Our personal rules & decrees are inventions, someone or something also has choice .. the choice to ignore our words.

.

Yes people always say we can just ignore, and that works to a degree where very mild and isolated abuses occur, but there is a place where one has to draw the line, otherwise we'd be open of any and all nature of abuse.

You see I'm not talking ideals or ideology, but rather, in terms of real life circumstance. These are very complicated because we survive not only in a physical environment, but also a social one.

Even in my own life, I have hurt people and seriously disrupted their lives without once laying a finger on them, just through my temper, idiocy, neglect and general dumbassedness. It's how I hurt other people by harbouring my own toxic wounds. In fact, I always wanted to be a kind hearted and loving person, but that isn't possible for those, who like me, harbour or store their own internal turmoil. Indeed, loving kindness is not something I do - it's more like something I discovered.

The main issue here is the desire, because the ground of ethics an issue of purity of intent. Ethics might adhere to varied ideology or cultural paradigm, but intent is a universal quality of humanity.

The intent must be connected to desire in some sense. There is first personal desire - I want this I want that - and then there's a desire for truth regardless of what it is I want. Regardless of preference. The latter thus negates the former for the former is personal want and the latter disregards one's personal want.

In such disregard, we begin to speak of notions of virtue, the greater good, extending beyond the intellect to the actuality of natures way. The purity of intent, then, is essentially the abandonment of ones own volitions that control and resist the spontaneous unfolding of nature - That is what we call 'equanimity', 'stillness of being', the cessation of reactivity - and it is this that enables the mind to go deeper, allows the old emotional contents to rise up and dissolve away, and faces the truth as it is without being dissuaded.





.

[happy soul]

A good way to respond to attacks is to love YOURSELF - to respond self-lovingly.

The question is, how is that done and what would it entail?

My answer is, experiment, LEARN to love yourself, find out what self-love is.

A good rule of thumb is, do what you feel good about. Respond to attacks in a way that you'll look back on and be glad you did.

[Raziel]

.

Originally Posted by Gem

I realised how I was manipulated into the defensive self-justifying role by them. After I realised that, I stopped refuting, correcting and self justifying.

How is this peremptory notion so far any different from the above?

The person using the term you is being manipulated into self justification here - by having to change a common term to none specific in order to self justify that they are not "attacking".

pronoun: a word that can function as a noun phrase used by itself and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g. I, you ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g. she, it, this ).

I'm not going to convince anyone sold on this idea that there are negative consequences despite presumed good intentions however an appeal to reason is a fair approach incase being wrapped up in the "good" of it all is blinding.

Abusive people also abuse the tools at their disposal. They abuse the words most people use to express themselves just as they abuse their hands & feet enacting violence upon others. They abuse everything.

The majority of times the word you is not being used in this manor, therefore its unrealistic & overbearing to insist that everyone using it is committing some kind of "faux pas".

I'd disagree profoundly that all of this is not steered by ideology, its an ideology whereby its followers believe themselves to be speaking on behalf of victims.


Cui bono? "to whom it benefits?"

Is that not a form of self deception right there? Who does this mentality benefit? Everyone or the few?

I often find that this type of proposal/insistence is all semantics introduced by a mentality that doesn't like to be wrong - in this example if I cannot point out that you were rude it absolves you of any blame. The problem is that many times the word is not being used as a blaming mechanism, merely to provide context in a long discussion or conversation.

We cannot speak from another persons heart but we are more than permitted to repeat what they have said, counter their specific proposals.

Also I notice the wordplay within the writing, after many instances of insisting that "I can only speak for myself" it quickly devolves into statements such as "this is why we call it Loving-Kindness".

Where is the spontaneous unfolding of nature 'stillness of being', the cessation of reactivity in banning the word you from conversation?

Its an ideology, it's the default gear within all of this. All of this is an individuals choice to follow - ideology should not be enacted forcefully or coerced via guilt.

.
.

[happy soul]

Raziel, the thing is that attack is attack. I think what you're saying is valid, but no amount of sentiment or logic can change truth. By that I mean that if a person is being unkind, they're being unkind - it is what it is.

My view is that a choice is an 'attack', or it is not. It's an absolute in that sense.

The unfortunate truth is that on social media, even on spiritual websites such as this, people often attack.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by happy soul

Raziel, the thing is that attack is attack. I think what you're saying is valid, but no amount of sentiment or logic can change truth. By that I mean that if a person is being unkind, they're being unkind - it is what it is.

My view is that a choice is an 'attack', or it is not. It's an absolute in that sense.

The unfortunate truth is that on social media, even on spiritual websites such as this, people often attack.

What if the word attack is being used in a situation unjustly?

Thats my point - yes people can be awful, but not every use of the term you is by default ... an attack.

Its suggesting that everyone has to change because a minority might use a simple word offensively.

Its case by case - its overkill to ban terminology because either a minority use it offensively or that a minority can't take criticism of their own statements or actions.

What happens is an undercurrent of conversion, altering everyone else to suit the few. Its an alliance of those who have blame issues alongside those who insist that to be spiritual in nature we must speak in the abstract.

All the talk of consent being given yet what about my consent or my neighbor?

If we do not give the consent to alter our behaviour against our better judgement there is an outpouring of guilt by (an) association (not actually taking place).

.

[happy soul]

Bless you my friend.

All is well.

[winter light]

Shivani and 7L

Thanks for your responses a while back. It meant a lot to me to be heard. So much that I had a 180 degree turnaround in perspective.

Back then I was talking about how many esoteric teachings that are kept secret to those who are not ready. And also how I felt execluded. Now I realize it is totally up to the school to decide their rules of engagement. And that it was somewhat selfish of me to expect otherwise. In all cases they are making great effort to hold a very specific space in order to be coherent. Tending to the whims of whomever shows up, no matter how enlightened or not, would be disruptive and defeat their reason for being. Their rules deserve respect.

I realize also why I feel excluded. It is because I do not fit into any religion or teaching and follow no one. And also I have no spiritual rituals because I am not able to do this. However that does not mean I have no purpose or direction. It just means it expresses differently.

Since becoming more spiritually awakened it has been a point of shame that I am so spiritual yet without any form. Spiritually I did not fit in anywhere on earth. This dispite my abilities to easily form telepathic connections and relationships as needed. And I followed Jung's methods of viewing the world as a dream state. Probably overdid it actually. So I have spent my life usually in some kind of shamanic experience of the world. The depth of which is hardly known by most people in my day-to-day life. I blend in as much as I can. But it takes a lot of energy.

I found acceptance of my own path by giving up the comparison with an organized religion or structured path. Instead it is more of a nomadic mystical path. Without temples or rituals. I am more like a Native American. I am close to the land and rely on my spirit and environment to support me and see the spiritual everywhere I go. As if I only carry my spiritual life in a small pouch that contains a few power objects that are meaningful to me. A quote here or there. Only what is necessary and useful.

[Gem]

...........................