It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[Kalika]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

yeah I'm similar... I often end up seeing both sides, and both sides make sense from the side the person is portraying. And yet neither side makes sense from my perspective... so I'm stuck both empathizing and not empathizing at the same time... Sigh...

I hear you!

[Kalika]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Be careful, they'll be sending out the Spanish Inquisition next.

This made me laugh

I adore your intellect...
And humour


This thread contains a great deal of wisdom from many great minds

Thanks God-like / daz for this thread !

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Kalika

Hi God-Like / Daz
Thanks for your post.
I may get this quote mixed up, I cant seem to capture my quote within your quote... here goes



Wrong page I think... I'm not trying to put myself in their shoes, as in, TRYING to empathize, I see myself as others and would say exactly what they would say if I were them. And as a result, automatically feel more empathetic when I view myself shouting hatred, etc although it's not literally coming out of my mouth, but theirs.

Hey,

For sure, if you were them, but that would put you in their shoes right

I think peeps can resonate with other's, and perhaps say and behave just like another who is perhaps protecting their child from an abuser, or a corrupt cop trying to cover their tracks .. in these scenarios one can see for why certain actions are taken ..

In that respect one can empathise, I think in many instances people that have experienced similar things they can empathise on a deeper level, it's why many abused peeps or peeps who have lost loved one's become good counsellors for examples sake ..

Falling leaves explains that there can be resonation and understandings had from both sides of an argument, it's in a similar vein to what we have both implied ..

What I will say however is that just because we can empathise with what another says or does and would perhaps do the same thing as they did and say the same things as they did, doesn't make that truthful or just, or humane for use of a better word/s.

I mean, you can understand that a fanatical terrorist believes in what they do in order to blow up 500 hundred peeps, does it make these actions right? Honourable? Just?

Do you see what I mean .. It's easy to resonate and understand and feel empathic, but on the other hand there is something at the heart of oneself that creates a certain expression ..


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Kalika

So if we choose to return to earth as an abuser because we want to know what its like (have yet to fully grasp what others where trying to teach me in my thread - because spirituality is unbelievably confusing and conflicting), then Sue's story is one that can teach us many things without needing to decide (whilst in our spirit family and not of this realm) to come back as an abuser or abused.

Hey again,

Something that resonates with what I heard a few years back was a mediums address at a spiritualist church meeting I went to .

She had lost her daughter due to rape and murder many years prior and had a difficult time dealing with what had happened as one can imagine .

The medium through her loss began to open up to spirituality and developed her own mediumistic gifts enough so to be able to communicate with spirit .

Her daughter came through one day and explained that the murder was contracted prior to incarnating .

This was a soul contract that involved the murderer .

Some abusers can teach us the most valuable lessons in life and from a place of only love, who/m better to bring about valuable lessons than those that love us

It's because we don't have the full picture or have the full understanding of what transpires gives us this mental and emotional quandary and turmoil.

When we are in the middle of abuse were not even thinking clearly and I speak from experiencing mental and emotional abuse living with an alcoholic and bipolar woman for over a decade .

But you know what, I learn't a hell of a lot about myself and my partner, I learn't a hell of a lot about behaviour and addictions and mental health, I learn't a great deal about expressions of self hate and denial amongst other things ..

Perhaps this is a further example of being in another's shoes or resonating with where other's come from so to speak ..


x daz x

Originally Posted by Altair

Hi Greenslade..
So where do you see it differently from me and Daz. I'm not really seeing it..
Yes.. judgement and discrimination can be negative and hurtful, but I like to view the words themselves as neutral.

It's not about the words it's about what people do with them that counts, and the darker side of judgement and the ensuing discrimination happens in these forums too. I'd always thought that Spiritual people weren't supposed to do that. Yes the words are neutral but there are behaviours that occur after the words.

Originally Posted by Altair

I think I can agree..
Anything specific on your mind with ''ideological supremacy'' and ''external agencies'' in the spiritual discourse?

The rush for ideological supremacy means that people think they have left their Freudian id (the base human) on the floor, but they have also left their superego behind also in order to become their vision of the superego. It's like thinking oneself as Christian because they go to church on Sunday then behind at the front door. It's the same old patterns repeating.



'External' agencies are things like God/gods and often the ideologies and theologies themselves. And this is where what you said about people not having sex, not enjoying their Lives etc.... comes in. Or the grass is always greener on the other side. People can give themselves to an imagined ideal instead of spending time trying to understand themselves better. They lose the conne3ctions to themselves. But that's an observation and not a criticism though.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Eggsactly Green Man, it's not about everyone agreeing it's about presenting to the other's why you see things as you do . If someone say's to you that isn't right or correct and they believe you are lying or delusional then they are welcome to explain why that is the case .

If there isn't any explanation and there is the refusal to back up such claims then there isn't anything spiritual in that behaviour .

The ironic thing is what peeps have observed is that those that do that originally have self elevated themselves above you in the first instance and then refuse to comment on your questions lol .

It's not even how normal folk behave when in disagreement let alone self elevated peeps .

It makes no sense to me .

This is why I say look at peeps responses to straightforward questions .



x daz x

The people with any real substance should be able to argue their case, as has been done in this thread before now. Talking of which, that reminds me - both you and JustBe both missed it - ultimately there is no self/Self so what is the argument really about?


Being honest Daz, it's mentality posing as Spirituality when people elevate themselves over others and what they often don't realise is that few people will give them any real credibility when they have little to say other than repeating things. It makes every sense to me, the tactics you're talking about is a personality disorder and ego on the rampage.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey,

Yes it's easy to parrot something, it's easy to educate yourself in the mirror image of a master and online there could be 5 million masters all singing from the same hymn sheet .

Go to any thread set up to honour a teacher and a master and it will be like a christian thread that simply recites the biblical texts .

You can't question anything that is quoted or said that goes against the grain of such teachings .

This isn't being open minded or spiritual is it ..


x daz x

Not in the least, but people pass it off as being Spiritual.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey,

I agree and what happens often in my case is that peeps can say that everything I say is conceptual and is made up in mind, which is true ..

But then peeps say they have had non conceptual realisations and declare that non conceptually they have realised the world is a dream full of dream characters .

So when questioned if what they declare is a truth of sorts and not a conceptual notion they say it's a pointer to the non conceptual truth of the non conceptual realisation beyond the mind

To then ask well if it's beyond mind how can you conclude that the world is a dream when beyond mind is beyond the knowing of what a dream is .

Using your statement in the way that you have, I would agree, and even niz said once in a quote that was posted is that all you can have is a preferred way of seeing things (roughly translated) .. even though he would present his way of seeing things as being correct :


x daz x

It's called negative (meaning destructive) cognitive behaviour nowadays, and the ancients called it Chitta or 'lower mind'. What they wouldn't have called it is "Right Thinking."



In short, your reality us defined by your perceptions, your perceptions are defined by your beliefs and your beliefs are defined by your definitions. If you have a definition of what Spiritual is - regardless of what it is - and you apply that definition to yourself then that becomes your paradigm. B y extension you also define what is not Spiritual. Anything that contradicts that paradigm is cognitively dissonant and is therefore rejected by the mind - either unconsciously or intentionally. People can only express what they have inside, I think that is the phrase you're looking for. People can't express substance if they have none.

One way to think about ego is as a protective heavy shell, such as the kind some animals have, like a big beetle. This protective shell works like armor to cut you off from other people and the outside world. What I mean by shell is a sense of separation: Here's me and there's the rest of the universe and other people. The ego likes to emphasize the "otherness" of others.

This sense of separation is an intrinsic part of the ego. The ego loves to strengthen itself by complaining—either in thoughts or words—about other people, the situation you find yourself in, something that is happening right now but "shouldn't be," and even about yourself. For example, when you're in a long line at the supermarket, your mind might start complaining how slow the checkout person is, how he should be doing this or doing that, or he failed to do anything at all—including packing the bag of the person ahead of you correctly.

When this happens, the ego has you in its grip. You don't have thoughts; the thoughts have you—and if you want to be free, you have to understand that the voice in your head has created them and irritation and upset you feel is the emotional response to that voice Only in this way can you be present to the truer world around you and see the golden shade in a pound of pears on the scanner, or the delight of a child in line who begs to eat them.The trick, of course, is to work to free ourselves from this armor and from this voice that is dictating reality.

- Eckhart Tolle

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

It's not about the words it's about what people do with them that counts, and the darker side of judgement and the ensuing discrimination happens in these forums too. I'd always thought that Spiritual people weren't supposed to do that. Yes the words are neutral but there are behaviours that occur after the words.

Hi Greenslade..

Perhaps it's not what 'spiritual people' ought to do. Best to drop the label as it creates unnecessary expectations and baggage one has to carry around. Spiritual according to whom, and by which standards? These days 'spiritual' just means you've adopted Eastern mysticism in belief and practice. It's the one primarily marketed as 'spiritual', it's the exotic cash cow.

Thanks for explaining your points on external agencies and ideological supremacy.

Understand the theory then carry out the experiment. If one is lucky experiment will validate theory. Language can explain theory but not successful experimental result. It is also true theory can't even begin to describe successful experimental result.

Methinks this is the issue with such threads.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Understand the theory then carry out the experiment.

If one is lucky experiment will validate theory.

Language can explain theory but not successful experimental result.

It is also true theory can't even begin to describe successful experimental result.

Methinks this is the issue with such threads.

Agreed on all fronts.

J