The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

.


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".

The difference is you didn't assert anything personal that I was thereby impelled to refute. I simply volunteered a personal perspective.

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.

I wasn't stressing the notion of good so much, but attempting to convey how pure intent relates to truth rather than desire for stuff I want.

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".

'You' is near-enough always used in verbal abusing a person.

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.

It's more like pointing out the mechanism of victimisation.

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.

Well, I'm not talking in absolutes, but in contextual meaning with real life things such as intent and circumstance.

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

Exactly. This makes the proposal the subject rather than the person.

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".

What I refer to as 'loving kindness' is universal, so it pertains to 'us'. of course we used various words to mean the same thing.

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

Of course we all use 'you' in conversation. I allude to the intent behind personally directed remarks. This is why it isn't a actually any sort of rule-set, but rather, something that requires honest self-awareness.

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.

It doesn't work by coercion, and I have said before that consent is definitively free of coercion. This also implies that choice is free of influence. All these, coercion and influence are exertions of power used to sway people one way or another. This operates on a very broad scale of narrative from one person persuading another to institutional narratives to the overall scale of the social narrative that tacitly define 'normalcy'.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

'You' is near-enough always used in verbal abusing a person.

Of course we all use 'you' in conversation. I allude to the intent behind personally directed remarks. This is why it isn't a actually any sort of rule-set, but rather, something that requires honest self-awareness.

Oh dear that's untenable, it would appear that stretching the truth also distorts it.

How convenient that those advocating something strongly are given special status. In this case having honest self-awareness.

I appreciate hearing your perspective - the fan girls will certainly be weak at the knees.

.


.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Oh dear that's untenable, it would appear that stretching the truth also distorts it.

Untenable only implies that it can't be grasped as knowledge

How convenient that those advocating something strongly are given special status. In this case having honest self-awareness.

The reason it requires self awareness is it can't be acquired as something known.

I appreciate hearing your perspective - the fan girls will certainly be weak at the knees.

Sarcasm implies the opposite of that said.

.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

Untenable only implies that it can't be grasped as knowledge .

The reason it requires self awareness is it can't be acquired as something known.

I'm not phased by wordy, ostentatious talk or spiritual legalese Gem.

It my be confusing to laypeople but it reminds me greatly of writers who are used to reading translated interpretation often & emulate a similar style.

The meat & potatoes is that one cannot decide what is best all.

People are ultimately responsible for themselves - health, finance, karma, hell.

There is a reason why we alone have to pay the ferryman...

.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by 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.

No problem.

Esoteric teachings are kept thus, not to deprive or be held back from those who are 'not ready', rather to avoid being misunderstood, misrepresented and misconstrued by those insincere beings who only profess or pretend to be due to a personal agenda.

During the course of my own life, I can fully understand why certain teachings were only meant for the more experienced...the more dedicated...the more open. So as not to be mistranslated into some form of 'pop culture literature' to be more mass appealing due to current social contexts...when that was not the intention of the esoteric teachings in the first place and bears no resemblance to them whatsoever due to personal/egotistical corruption..and meanwhile, all the original authors are going "yup...and that's WHY they were esoteric to begin with".

Originally Posted by winter light

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.

I always carry a small pouch of marbles every time I leave the house, and one of those crystal holograms with an angel. And sitting beside me is a notebook with a couple of quotes that I've been carrying for around 16 years or so.

There is nothing or nobody that isn't Spiritual.

It gets easier, to blend in, if you don't concentrate too much on the difference but rather on the 'interface'. There's a very subtle difference but important nonetheless. Energy flows where the attention goes so think 'aerodynamic'.

"Not all those who wander are lost."
Gandalf, talking about Aragorn

Spiritual conversation is certainly going to be difficult if threads keep disappearing rather than closed.

I've lost altogether 15 posts in about 4 months because of thread deletion. The thread in question today seemed perfectly innocuous, It was something that NEED be said and pertains in its own way to this very topic. But it's gone.

By the time I've read through the evolving discussions I'd say 15 posts probably adds up to almost 10 hours effort. On losing 12 in one go some while ago I decided to curtail posts to a minimum. I was just getting confidence back - and it's happened again. Made me late for zumba today as well.

So I revert to small ones hereafter - that's if I'm not kicked out for raising this issue.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Spiritual conversation is certainly going to be difficult if threads keep disappearing rather than closed.

I've lost altogether 15 posts in about 4 months because of thread deletion. The thread in question today seemed perfectly innocuous, It was something that NEED be said and pertains in its own way to this very topic. But it's gone.

By the time I've read through the evolving discussions I'd say 15 posts probably adds up to almost 10 hours effort. On losing 12 in one go some while ago I decided to curtail posts to a minimum. I was just getting confidence back - and it's happened again. Made me late for zumba today as well.

So I revert to small ones hereafter - that's if I'm not kicked out for raising this issue.

belief
# an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. #

~

Its a personal thing & when some feel that it is being questioned they go into meltdown. Look at Charlie Hebdo.

The same mentality causes the suicide bombing of threads by complaining to the mods all of the time.

Essentially we all go down for their beliefs.

Disagreement is part of life, it still gives us an insight into others thinking & on some level allows us to form relationships / acknowledge them for who they are.

It's unfair that the validity of the things being said is not allowed to be measured by each reader, instead it becomes a game of small print application. As I understand it now we cannot name drop other posters which begs the question - what is the quote feature if not name dropping?

I'll go down in a blaze of glory if I need to - both sides need to be presented otherwise what is the point..



.

^^^Sums it up. Rather a lot is lost when discussion is thwarted by an over-sensitive few. As you say - what's the point?

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

^^^Sums it up. Rather a lot is lost when discussion is thwarted by an over-sensitive few. As you say - what's the point?

It's been my point in this thread also - trying to ban the word "you" is essentially the language police.

All belief systems allow or quash notions & actions considered to be fine by others. Circumcision, abortion, pork, how prayer is performed ...

It is part of discussion to point out why poster A doesn't subscribe to a set of rules or principles. Poster B will have a counter point.

I don't see the issue in that. I understand the principle of circumcision for example even if a vast majority of the time its an overreaction from my pov - it's a fact of life that they happen.

There is no disparagement in pointing out perceived flaws in logic - the take away is that A & B disagree.

Often when a counterpoint cannot be made other than "my feelings tell me" there ends up being one side that is silenced which is despicable in my view.

It's putting one viewpoint above another.


.