Emerald

Exactly. This is why you won't respond in a real way to the things that I just wrote to you. You cannot listen to my perspective, because the ego is afraid that its worldview will be undermined. And that it won't be able to employ the proper mental gymnastics and rationalizations to maintain itself.

Spiritual bypassing, by definition, is when a person always defaults to higher up spiritual truths to avoid the emotional and physical labor that goes into more worldly issues. So, it presents itself as an enlightened detachment, but is really an avoidance technique that the ego employs to avoid aspects of reality that undermine its worldview, create feelings of cognitive dissonance, and require a shift out of the ego's comfort zone. There is an insight about enlightenment that applies here. "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." The implications of this insight are far-reaching. It means that, even after discovering the truth of no-self and transcending the delusions of ego, there are still practical issues that have to be dealt with on the level of duality. And defaulting to higher up non-dual and spiritual truths, just aren't going to cut the wood. And the water isn't going to carry itself either. The same is true for the relative issue of systemic racism. Understanding the delusions of self on the personal level, will do absolutely nothing to the issue of systemic racism in the world at large. The system of racism won't chop itself, just because you're enlightened. But let's flip this around if you really care about overcoming personal delusions as the solution to all things. Why do you believe that your perspective is THE correct perspective to the exclusion of other perspectives? What does it give to you?

@Serotoninluv You might realize this already and I might be preaching to the choir, but I think he's a little too sure of the rightness of his perspective to hear what you're saying. In my opinion, with Outer, it's a little different. He has a lot of resistance relative to certain perspectives but he shows some promise in shifts that he's already made, and he doesn't really think he has it all figured out. There's really only some barriers there to realizations of certain liberating relative truths. So, definitely worth trying to get him to release some resistance, because there is a big part of him that's trying to become more conscious in general, even if there's lot of resistance present. But it's a lot harder to convince someone who is in perspective that spiritually bypasses the issues, because they think they've already arrived at the perspective to end all perspectives. That's why spiritual bypassing is so dangerous. It doesn't just block one or two perspectives. It blocks all relative perspectives, under the guise of being in the most superior perspective. So, that person can stay stuck forever because they won't question their viewpoints or shift perspectives at all and without being able to shift into more appropriate perspectives for a given issue.

Whoosh!

If that wasn't your intention, then why did you even go into the Gandhi stuff? It was pretty obvious that the quote was very far divorced from Gandhi's negative actions, and that I was just responding in a half-agreeing way to the quote in the first place. Plus, you know that most people don't know about Gandhi's issues in the first place, and that most people don't know that was his quote. So, it's like you decided to pull that small part out of my response to someone else, and then make it like I am permissible to his viewpoints because I 'think words are more important than actions.' Admit, even if it wasn't you intention, this totally looks like a set-up for a dishonest debate strategy.

I wasn't making any over-arching claim about Gandhi being a good person because he made that quote. In fact, I didn't even know it was a quote from him when I responded to it. Gandhi himself, was nowhere in that discussion. So, what you're doing is trying to make it seem like I was making a claim in support of Gandhi (because of or despite his racism and pedophilia) by half-agreeing with a quote by him that I didn't even know was from him. Then positioning yourself as a more reasonable person by saying, "Well actions speak louder than words, to me at least." Which implies that I don't think actions speak louder than words and assumes that I'm coming from the perspective of saying that "Gandhi is okay and his perspective is permissible because he made this quote that I kind of agree with from some perspectives this one time, even if I disagree with his actions." But this is not what I said. You're just trying to trap me into that perspective, so you can discredit my points of view. You know this already. But I was just responding to a totally different point that Jack River brought up, where I was even nuanced about the quote and said that we shouldn't use that quote to obscure broader truths and always default to the individual perspective as some issues can't be solved from that perspective. But you saw that as an opportunity to debate in bad faith, and to discredit me by implying that by my half-agreeing with a quote by Gandhi (who very few people know that he actually did pretty messed up things), that I somehow see words as weighing in more than actions relative to racism and other issues. This can then be used to launch ad hominem attacks and to discredit my viewpoint on the basis that I'm the type of person who values words over actions, and is willing to overlook racism if someone has the right words. It's a very tricksy hobbits thing to do. Sneaky Sneaky. Shame on you.

I have observed that "good" and "evil" are noticeable forces in the internal landscape. So, even if there are no good and evil things out in reality, there are two warring drives that exist in the wilderness of the internal experience. And the friction between the two drives creates a lot of chaotic energy. It is only in being able to detach from identification with these drives in full, both good and evil, that we can zoom out and see how they interact together. So, good and evil both do and do not exist. They don't from the objective labeling perspective. There is nothing about reality that is good or evil... not even the drives of good and evil. The drives of good and evil are both morally neutral. But they do exist phenomenologically as drives that have real and tangible effects on our attitudes and behaviors. They are there.

The quote I agree with from some perspectives. But I also think it shouldn't be used to avoid looking at issues on the big picture level as it was in the post I was responding to. But obviously, I don't agree with Gandhi's statements or actions. So, I don't really see how this quote relates to his racism and pedophilia. It's not really related in any way. It's not like he said, "Be the racist pedophile that you want to see in the world."

Wow! You're so smart! I am the problem. I am the problem. I am the problem. I realized it now that you put it that way. (which by the way, I had an entire thread about how these biases effect me too) So... is systemic racism solved now or are unarmed black people still being shot up in the street due to unconscious racial biases? Oh... they still are. Oh well, that's okay. At least I am more self-aware and detached... which means that I have the most enlightened perspective relative to racial issue. I'm glad you pulled me up to your level.

You perceive what I'm doing as arguing, but I'm not arguing at all. I'm telling people things that I've observed in hopes that they will let go of their biases and be able to perceive more accurately what's always been in front of them. So, what is your solution to systemic racism. How will we be able to change the status quo of white defaults by working only on ourselves without regard to the social system at large. Just realize that it's not okay, and shut our mouth so that we avoid conflict. If everyone did this, we'd still be in the stone ages.

What does this look like to you? How do we "step out of the stream"? Right now, it honestly just sounds like you're bypassing and defaulting to a more detached perspective. And just saying... "Stop the conflict, and listen to me. I'm detached and have transcended the issue. So, just step out of the stream like me and let the world do whatever it does... Just focus on yourself and everything else will fall into place." So, if you can give a bit more context with your advice, I would be happy to listen to it. But right now it just sounds like you're bypassing and being avoidant of switching to a more down to Earth perspective.

What do you think we're doing right now? You seem to have a particular idea of what it means to "understand the problem together" and you're missing it when it's right in front of your face.

I agree with the statement, "Be the change you want to see in the world". But defaulting to the individual perspective has very little efficacy in this scenario, as most of the issues we're dealing with aren't clear or solvable from that paradigm. You have to be able to zoom out from the individualist perspective to see how the whole, entire system is working. Only then, can we see the root cause of systemic racism and remedy the issue in an effective way. Most people (not everyone but most) already have positive intentions relative to race. So, the problem doesn't lie in what is already known and the decisions of individuals. We have to be able to see how collective patterns and individual patterns work together as a system to maintain the patterns that contribute to systemic racism. So, to say "there is not society" is true from some perspectives. Ultimately a society is a just a combination of different individuals coming together to do different tasks. In the same way, we could say that a forest is an illusion. This is true from some perspectives and untrue from others. From some perspectives, a forest is just a collection of individual trees that happen to exist in the same place. But if there is an issue in the forest, we may not be able to solve that issue by looking at all the trees as separate and unrelated systems. We have to realize that the trees together make up their own system. And we have to be able to open our eyes to the workings of that larger system to find the root causes of those problems and effective solutions for them. So, to go around saying "there is no forest" when there is an issue in the forest, is just turning a blind eye to that issue. It won't solve it. It's just remaining in the comfort zone by switching to a paradigm where you don't have to do the labor of actually solving something. This is what is meant by the metaphor, "missing the forest for the trees."

That will probably yield some positive results for many people. But yes, it's always those that are less aware of their shadow, that end up being influenced more by it.

It's easy to take these kinds of stand-points, when you're not dealing with the consequences of these issues. This is why I don't default to "top shelf" perspectives like the non-dual perspective, as it isn't relevant to the situation. And these higher up perspectives can be used for spiritual bypassing and ignoring real world problem. Then, we can pat ourselves on the back for not getting involved and remaining "conscious" and detached. But it's just more avoidance and more ego. It is the invalidation of relative and practical perspectives... just using a different thought story about ego/non-duality/detachment.

If someone tells me "Imagine a person walking into a bar." I just spontaneously have an image of a white man walking into a bar. So, it's not a conscious decision. I'm not like, "Let me imagine it's a white guy doing it." It's just how my subconscious mind fills in the blanks when I'm not paying attention to my biases. So, I could write this off and say that there's no significance here, and that it isn't the result of social patterns that encourage the notion of white defaultism... but this would just be self-deception. And it would only serve to comfort me and my own ego... meanwhile people of color are being affected in a real and tangible way by this widespread systemic bias, that has subtle and pervasive effects on everyone. But again, on the practical and subjective level, race does exist and everyone sees it. To claim that you've somehow transcended noticing race, is just a major self-deception. They did studies and found that babies even notice differences in skin color. It is only your fear of being labelled racist that makes you claim to not notice or care about race.... that's just the ego at play. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. So, it's just a white person's attempt to avoid uncomfortable awarenesses relative to race as well as their own potential racial biases and participation in systemic racism. That way, everything can remain the same and that you, as a white person, can stay in your own racial comfort zone. And everything remaining the same is good for you... but it's not good for anyone who is disenfranchised relative to the status quo. So, people of color don't have a detached comfort zone they can retreat to. They don't have the privilege of saying, "Race doesn't exist" and just "transcend" the practical issues that are coming to them as a result of systemic racism. Black parents living in the ghetto who have their unarmed sons shot in the street can shout "Race doesn't exist!" as loud as they want to. And they can do all the mental gymnastics that they want. But it won't change the fact that systemic racism has had profound irreversible negative effects on their lives.

I suppose that makes sense, because the societies form which the conquesters stemmed from were deeply Blue and were spurred on by the monarchies of the time. And the drive toward land expansion is certainly very Orange. Plus, they mostly went for gold, God, and glory... so two Oranges and one Blue. Perhaps it could be said, however, that the individual conquesters were probably a mix of Red, Blue, and Orange as seen in their methods and motivations for taking over new lands.

Thank you! Yes. It's a Buddhist story based upon the Hindu God Indra.

Part of undoing racism is noticing whenever racist tendencies come up in ourselves. So, if I was of the belief, "I'm so enlightened that I'm past even noticing or caring about race.", then I would be bald-face lying to myself to avoid having to face with my own implicit biases and level of participation in systemic racism. There are a ton of people (mostly white people) deluding themselves into believing they are color blind and don't care about race at all. But you'll notice that when the topic comes up they get very emotional and defensive to hide their shadow from themselves. And they will argue with you tooth and nail just to prove to themselves and others that systemic racism isn't something that they could fall victim to. Counterintuitively, a person who notices how deeply they are afflicted by the system of racism and the effects it has on their emotions, behavior, and daily life are far less likely to participate in the perpetuation of systemic racism. When one relegates their own racial biases to their shadow and ignores them, they don't just go away. They sneak into the driver's seat and take the wheel when they're in the blindspots of our own worldview. This is the way the shadow works. So, instead of running the "I'm not racist" loop over and over in our heads, it is best to get our ego out of the equation and really brutally honestly question that notion and consider that maybe we have been affected by systemic racism and its patterns and are actually participating in maintaining that system. Part of becoming more conscious is being able to consider whether or not we're currently unconscious.

That depends upon whether we consider colonialism a stage Orange or stage Red phenomenon. If we consider it Orange, then you could say that racism stems from stage Orange, because prior to that there was little to no interaction between those of other races. But if we think of colonialism as stage Red, which feels more apt to me because of the warlord-like nature of the conquesters of the time as well as the blood-shed and direct domineering influence of those seeking to take over new lands, then we could say that Red is the primary intonation of racism, Blue the secondary, and Orange the tertiary... and even with Green having some residual racism; with each stage reflecting a decrease in intensity and bloodshed from the previous. What are your thoughts on this?

I could see the idea of a fractal being applicable in this sense of how patterns reflect through reality. My channel is called the Diamond Net, based upon the Diamond Net of Indra. The idea is that reality is an infinite net that stretches out in infinite dimensions. And at each of the vertices of the net lies a jewel. And in that jewel reflects all the other jewels in the net, which also reflect all the other jewels in the net, ad infinitum. So, you could say that reality is both the one jewel, and that in that one jewel contains all the other jewels in the net which are infinite. So, the idea is very fractal-like as well.

I totally agree. It's always interesting to me how two totally different systems tend to reflect similar patterns. I started realizing this when I learned how to paint. I realized a lot of metaphors about reality that way. And I never would have guessed so many patterns echo through reality that way.

Also, I forgot to add before, white defaultism isn't really part of my shadow for the most part, but it used to be before I became conscious of it. I have integrated the awareness that I have been affected by notions of white defaultism. So, I notice when I fall into that pattern and can quickly get up out of it. Things you are aware of at not part of your shadow anymore. Now, that's not to say that I'm always perfectly conscious 100% of the time. I slip into unconsciousness and end up running the social scripts sometimes before I realize it. Understand that the only reason why I know that white defaultism exists is because I've noticed how this pattern has affected me and the way I think about the world, others, and myself as a white person. I am not regurgitating any talking points here. I'm telling you what I've directly observed in myself, and the patterns that I notice in myself that others also fall into. And I can also see the implications of those patterns on how society works in general. All you have to do is let go of preconceived notions and perceive what is there and has always been there in front of you.

This is why I make a point to state that the system of racism is mostly an invisible hand issue, that stems from the workings of the system as opposed to direct malicious intent. So, unconsciousness itself is the primary enemy, not individuals. But I do believe in being as frank and direct as possible for the sake of understanding and optimization of nuance in that understanding. And I don't like to sugar coat anything, as it is not necessary and tends to coddle and muddy the waters. The social system is very impersonal anyway, so just being accurate won't make anyone feel implicated or demonized... unless they were going to project that anyway no matter what anyone has to say on the matter that they disagree with. The way I see it is that if I am as perceptive, thorough, and honest as possible then the people who are the least emotionally attached to their current paradigm will be able to have an "aha!" moment and be able to have more clarity around this situation. People who are very emotionally attached to their perspective are unlikely to change no matter what, unless they share the value of becoming more conscious. So, the way I see it is that I'm very unlikely to make those that are triggered emotionally by this topic budge at all. But there are a ton of people who aren't triggered emotionally who will be able to recognize these patterns if I lay them out accurately and thoroughly, as their emotional attachments won't stand in the way of their perception.

My impression of @Leo Gura statement (correct me if I'm wrong), is that he probably sees this issue as something that will always lead to pointless squabbling and going around in circles, as opposed to lending to actual positive results. That's normally how these topics go on the forum. And Leo usually shuts down topics like this because people end up falling back on the same unconscious talking points. My impression of what you believe Leo is doing, is that he's taking a more Turquoise detached approach to the issue and kind of trusting that the system will work out without our intervention. Or perhaps, that the world is Maya and that it's pointless to be invested in matters of illusion and duality. But I don't believe this is why Leo made that statement... as I think he was focused more in a down-to-Earth way. My impression is that Leo sees the need for raising consciousness in society and is interested in systems thinking and social engineering. So, he sees it as a necessity that society evolves up to Green. But that he just doesn't trust that these discussions will produce fruitful results toward that end because a lot of JP fans and people in general just end up going around in circles and playing mental gymnastics. So, it seems that he doubts the efficacy of these sorts of discussions. If this is his viewpoint, I personally disagree with this. I think that showing people issues from different perspectives can make lightbulbs go off. And even if the person I'm talking to won't get it, others passing by will. And this will help toward creating the social shift. But this is just my impression. I could be wrong.