A Disturbing Truth About Spiritual Teachings

[UnbornTao]

When someone like Ramana talks about consciousness and such, they're referring to something different from a trip, state, or experience.

The likelihood that Leo is labeling an experience or state change as 'consciousness,' 'infinity,' 'awakening,' and similar terms is high.

The difference in stance on drugs between him and some of these guys may point to this fundamental misstep - hence the resulting nonsense about absolute mice, aliens, and so on.

I remember believing in this and calling my breakthrough trips "Awakening" this and "Awakening" that. But then I got over it - after a few years. They are simply experiences, however novel, powerful, healing, awe-inspiring, loving, "enlightening", or terrifying they may be. I also understand the self-aggrandizement aspect of it.

This is why it's said that this path is potentially (or virtually guaranteed to be) deluding. You would be barking up the wrong tree, but unfortunately, dogs get easily distracted by fireworks. Be honest and move on - this is my suggestion.

Edited 14 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Sincerity]

@UnbornTao 1. Do you agree that there are different states? That awareness of what is can be more expanded, more contracted, etc.?

2. If there are different states, then what is state referencing? State of what?

3. And then, can it be that some states "put" you in better seeing of what is? And in some your seeing is more limited? So then why deny what you understood from a higher state, especially when you can accurately recall how & what it was?

I'm really trying to understand what the fundamental difference in your worldview is. And what it's based on.

Edited 14 hours ago by Sincerity

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Under some of their views mystical union is participation in God, not identity with God. They believe the human person remains a person even in union with God.

That's merely a function of depth.

If your Awakening is shallow you remain a person, if it is deep you become God.

By definition, Union is Identity. You can't be in union with God but not identical to God.

The Christian position is logically incoherent and cluess of what Union and Identity are.

Again, this is merely a function of depth, not any fundamental disagreement. This is a debate over minutia.

My view includes and transcends the Christian view because my consciousness is deeper.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats not your conclusion, your conclusion is that you are correct.

That's right. Of course I understand God better than any fucking Christian. Because if you understood God you wouldn't be a Christian.

Can I prove it to you? No.

You will understand I was right once you sufficiently Awaken. And it could not be otherwise.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's merely a function of depth.

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said?

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By definition, Union is Identity. You can't be in union with God but not identical to God.

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My view includes and transcends the Christian view because my consciousness is deeper.

Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then  your view includes logically incoherent things.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

It seems like this is just a disagreement about how words are used.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

It seems like this is just a disagreement about how words are used.

Identity is really complicated.

There are many different theses for identity and its easy to equivocate in between them.

Just because under one sense of identity a view seems logically incoherent that doesnt mean that the view is actually incoherent if a different sense is used. Thats why I said that he is just not engaging with how they use the word.

Its basically an uncharitable and lazy move.

Edited 10 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said?

Yes. Lack of depth often leads to misunderstanding and flat out wrong conclusions.

It it possible to have an Awakening but then get very deluded about it. As a Christian might do. Because they don't have the epistemic foundation.

Quote

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

I am not going to waste my time micro-analyzing Christian ontology. They don't deserve that much respect because they are epistemic perverts to begin with.

Quote

Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then  your view includes logically incoherent things.

Of course my view includes that humans are incoherent.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Lunatic]

@UnbornTao

    “Ultimately, what is real can’t be seen or heard or thought or grasped. You’re just seeing your own eyes, hearing your own ears, reacting to the world of your own imagination. It’s all created by your mind in the first place. You name it, you create it, you give it meaning upon meaning upon meaning. You add the what to reality, then you add the why. It’s all you.” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 14)
    “Even if you experience all the levels and dimensions within one thought, all the veils and loops of it, not even the deepest knowledge has meaning. Anyone can step into it at any level, and it would be true. There is nothing that isn’t true if you believe it, and nothing that is true, believe it or not.” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 52)

 

[Joshe]

It's supply and demand. 

Spiritual narratives stabilize the self, solving many serious problems at once. They make people feel:

• special
• purposeful
• enlightened
• morally superior 
• connected to ultimate truth
• part of a cosmic story
• And more

Belief's main function is stabilization. Most people, including intelligent ones, are very willing to adopt sets of beliefs if they're packaged coherently and can stabilize the self. Stabilizing the self is what's most important. Most seekers aren't really after truth. That's just post-hoc rationalization 99% of the time. 

The supplier must tend to the fact that the demand largely consists of unconscious stabilization needs and not a need for truth. This seems a hard thing to balance for an integrous teacher. Serving stabilization is antithetical to many of the truths an integrous teacher would want to teach. But if you don't serve ample stabilization, your audience will look elsewhere.

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe