Why do spiritual teachers evolve to Turquoise?

[UnbornTao]

On 18/11/2023 at 2:39 PM, Salvijus said:

I don’t think there is an exception that only out of unawareness can someone perform an action that is out of alignment with truth and wholeness. I also believe how you respond to things define you and your level of awareness at that moment, without exception. 

I would rather question how accurate and credible are the stories of those supposed evil actions of a guru. And how correct was the judgement of the one who was interpreting a guru's behavior. Because a tainted eye tend to see evil when there is none. Or I would question their level of enlightenment. Maybe an example that is being scrutinized is not of a legit enlightened being to begin with. 

Cultural conditioning applies to our discussion. Consider zen warriors who partook in wars and who killed people. That was done in China, Chan's (Zen) origin place.

By exception, I mean that people can still fuck up even when enlightened. There's truth to what you say -- how you respond shows your depth of consciousness. However, my point is still valid. Adi Da was profoundly conscious and wasn't exempt from problematic behavior. Gandhi was a womanizer. Osho owned a lot of luxury cars and ran a problematic cult. Nissargadatta smoked like crazy. Take a look at history.

Let's say that you are completely enlightened now. What you could do prior to enlightenment is the same now.

Separate the teacher from the person.

Edited November 19, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Let's say that you are completely enlightened now. What you could do prior to enlightenment is the same now.

Love behaves very diferenetly then fear based ego. Love would never do what ego and fear tries to do. For it would no longer be love then and you could not call that an enlightened/truthful/conscious action anymore. In other words, you can't perform unconscious actions driven by fear, illusion and ego and claim to be conscious at the same time.

Not sure what to say about those examples tho. They were not fully enlightened maybe would be the easiest explanation. Or there are missing pieces to the story. Or somebody misunderstood, misinterpret, misjudged a particular behavior etc. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Salvijus

[SeaMonster]

I will repeat this till I'm blue in the face.

This race to higher levels of SD is basically psychopathological denial of one's primitive nature shadow.

There is nothing evolved about it, it's an escape from the ugly and necessary realities of life.

It's like all the stupid Greens worrying about Trump when their cities are in ruins.  It's just peak madness.

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

I will repeat this till I'm blue in the face.

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Love behaves very diferenetly then fear based ego. Love would never do what ego and fear tries to do. For it would no longer be love then and you could not call that an enlightened/truthful/conscious action anymore. In other words, you can't perform unconscious actions driven by fear, illusion and ego and claim to be conscious at the same time.

Not sure what to say about those examples tho. They were not fully enlightened maybe would be the easiest explanation. Or there are missing pieces to the story. Or somebody misunderstood, misinterpret, misjudged a particular behavior etc. 

According to legend, only Gautama was completely enlightened, but we don't know.

I don't disagree with your main point, however you can perform the same actions as before, perhaps not influenced as much by pain or fear, depending on one's depth of understanding. Shouting at your students, for example. Why wouldn't this be done out of love?

Again, there has likely been enlightened warriors who participated in wars. What was their motivation? Enlightened guys can get divorced, have addictions, vote for unconscious, deceptive people, etc. 

Overall, I think you are holding enlightenment as a sort of ideal and perhaps conflating the domain of realization with personal transformation. Unless you're talking about something else.

Edited November 20, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Lila9]

On 11/18/2023 at 3:05 AM, Happy Lizard said:

Umm .. yeah

 

Osho is so inspiring 🙏

[Salvijus]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

perhaps conflating the domain of realization with personal transformation

I like this quote. "there are no enlightened people, there are only enlightened and unenlightened actions" 

There are only two ways to perform an action, either from love or from fear, either from illusion or reality, either from inclusiveness or exclusiveness, either from compulsiveness or consciousness. The only way to act out of love is if your awareness is in alignment with love, is in alignment with Truth and wholeness and inclusiveness. And the only way to act out of fear, illusion, compulsiveness, exclusiveness is if your not aware. Not fully aware at least. That's why I would put all those examples you gave under one umbrella: "not fully aware" 

If looked at this purely from theoretical level I doubt there is anyone who can find a flaw in the reasoning above. I don't think there is one. It simply makes too much sense. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

According to legend, only Gautama was completely enlightened, but we don't know.

Yea I find it very easy to believe that none are fully enlightened here on earth. It's almost an impossible achievement. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

Every action that is driven by fear, ego, illusion, compulsiveness is not a product of infinite intelligence, peace, love, wisdom, wholeness. But lack thereof. 

One's depth and scope of awareness determines whether you will be a conduit and an expression of Truth and love. Or will you be an expression of falsity and ego. 

(Trying to formulate these ideas into a satisfying clean way) 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

On 20/11/2023 at 8:32 AM, Salvijus said:

Every action that is driven by fear, ego, illusion, compulsiveness is not a product of infinite intelligence, peace, love, wisdom, wholeness. But lack thereof. 

One's depth and scope of awareness determines whether you will be a conduit and an expression of Truth and love. Or will you be an expression of falsity and ego. 

(Trying to formulate these ideas into a satisfying clean way) 

Sounds solid.

On 20/11/2023 at 6:40 AM, Salvijus said:

I like this quote. "there are no enlightened people, there are only enlightened and unenlightened actions" 

There are only two ways to perform an action, either from love or from fear, either from illusion or reality, either from inclusiveness or exclusiveness, either from compulsiveness or consciousness. The only way to act out of love is if your awareness is in alignment with love, is in alignment with Truth and wholeness and inclusiveness. And the only way to act out of fear, illusion, compulsiveness, exclusiveness is if your not aware. Not fully aware at least. That's why I would put all those examples you gave under one umbrella: "not fully aware" 

If looked at this purely from theoretical level I doubt there is anyone who can find a flaw in the reasoning above. I don't think there is one. It simply makes too much sense. 

What about just to do it?

I just raised my arms. Was that motivated by love or by fear?

Edited November 21, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What about just to do it?

I just raised my arms. Was that motivated by love or fear?

The idea to rise your arms probably has arisen either as 1. an attempt to find a flaw in the theory or 2. to test the theory and dig deeper into it out of curiosity. 

1. There could've been egoic resistance to accept opposing person's views. So ego out of fear not to be seen as weak/wrong and "less knowledgeable" makes an attempt to find a flaw in the subject just so it wouldn't need to accept the opposing views and could maintain its position and identity that it is used to. And that way we can see how a seemingly innocent action was actually motivated by resistence to accept something and behind resistance there will be fear always. 

Ooooorrrr

2. The seemingly innocent action could also boil down all the way to love. Perhaps there was a genuine curiosity and interest to expand the understanding of the subject. A genuine thirst to know more. And to explore it further. And the idea to rise arms was just an extention of a genuine desire to know more. Then it is driven by pure uncorrupted desire of the heart. (love).  

One thing's for sure. Nobody can perform an action without a motivating factor being there first. And there are only two motivating factors. Love and fear. But the actual proof why it is so would be quite difficult to write it down and would probably be very long. Maybe some day. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

32 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

One thing's for sure. Nobody can perform an action without a motivating factor being there first. And there are only two motivating factors. Love and fear. But the actual proof why it is so would be quite difficult to write it down and would probably be very long. Maybe some day. 

Actually here's a short proof of it.

The only way to make any action is by the power of desire. 

Desire can take two forms. 1. desire to expand or 2. desire to contract.

1. desire to contract comes out of fear, because of ego trying to protect itself. 

2. desire to expand is just our souls natural longing for God and infinity that is simply there all the time. 

These are the only two actions possible. Love or fear. Resistance or surrender. Control or trust. Smile or frown. Seek or allow. Letting go or holding tight. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

The idea to rise your arms probably has arisen either as 1. an attempt to find a flaw in the theory or 2. to test the theory and dig deeper into it out of curiosity. 

1. There could've been egoic resistance to accept opposing person's views. So ego out of fear not to be seen as weak/wrong and "less knowledgeable" makes an attempt to find a flaw in the subject just so it wouldn't need to accept the opposing views and could maintain its position and identity that it is used to. And that way we can see how a seemingly innocent action was actually motivated by resistence to accept something and behind resistance there will be fear always. 

Ooooorrrr

2. The seemingly innocent action could also boil down all the way to love. Perhaps there was a genuine curiosity and interest to expand the understanding of the subject. A genuine thirst to know more. And to explore it further. And the idea to rise arms was just an extention of a genuine desire to know more. Then it is driven by pure uncorrupted desire of the heart. (love).  

One thing's for sure. Nobody can perform an action without a motivating factor being there first. And there are only two motivating factors. Love and fear. But the actual proof why it is so would be quite difficult to write it down and would probably be very long. Maybe some day. 

Let's consider it was done because it was done. I just raised my arms because I intended to do so. Admittedly, I also wanted to look into this, but this was prior to and irrelevant to the action itself, even though in my interpretation the action might had been motivated by this or that, whether desire, boredom, curiosity, love or something else. I might as well intend to raise my arms again just for its own sake.

What is an action? What occurs as action? In the moment of acting, what occurs for you? How does an action show up?

54 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Actually here's a short proof of it.

The only way to make any action is by the power of desire. 

Desire can take two forms. 1. desire to expand or 2. desire to contract.

1. desire to contract comes out of fear, because of ego trying to protect itself. 

2. desire to expand is just our souls natural longing for God and infinity that is simply there all the time. 

These are the only two actions possible. Love or fear. Resistance or surrender. Control or trust. Smile or frown. Seek or allow. Letting go or holding tight. 

Hmm, it seems to me like the only requirement for action is intention. In the moment you act, an intention has been made. The intention arises simultaneously with the action. If this were the case, an action can show up without needing desire as a motivating drive. To insist, intent is the key, which is interlinked with the action itself. The action and the intent appear to us as "action". It's a tricky distinction to make in one's experience, I'm being intellectual, haven't really generated it yet.

To play devil's advocate:

Let's say I just farted. Is that motivated, or occurs as a physiological process? In my case, fear was certainly not the motivating factor, and love doesn't seem to be the case either, or maybe it was in a weird way.

In any case, I think this might be a cosmology or a model that you hold, simplistic and useful, but not true per se. I feel attracted to it.

[Justdoit247]

Reading here feels like I’ve got it wrong. To me stages are fluid (or better to say (have spectrum) as higher the stage is the spectrum is broader. Stages are accumulated and every stage has positive values. Then probably in a society full of different stages a higher stage person will need to act accordingly to the stage situation in order to get positive (to that stage) outcome. 
To help orange stage person you need to act at his stage and slower to push to green, to help green person you need as well to (gain his interest by acting at his stage) then slowly to push towards yellow. If you try to “wash” them with pure Turquoise love, and show yourself as so, then they will think you are insane. They will demonize you and “game over”. You can’t get any trust, respectively can’t help them move forward. 

In addition to that, enlightenment to me is not a static point. If you lock the thing in “count to only 2” (like good-bad, ego-spirit, enlightened and not enlightened) and do not look at it all as spectrum there is a lot of meaning lost. Like a black-white 2D picture. 

And last but not least, I don’t agree that for high enlightened people is “normal” to have “bad habits”. I mean, if you are really conscious enough most of the time you can’t be stuck in “habits” that are harmful to you. It somehow make no any sense to me. 

Consciousness same as enlightenment is fluid (it is a nonlinear spectrum). Bad habits are lower consciousness by default. Ok, basically habits are lower consciousness (they are also a spectrum tho) but they have their protective mechanisms. If try to keep yourself in a very high consciousness state for too long your physical system may burn (especially if not at all trained for that). You can’t lift 100 kg and keep it non-stop up if you have never lifted 50 kg. (Sorry for the “kilograms” I’m from Europe). 

What I mean is, even highly enlightened individuals (because enlightenment is a spectrum) need to navigate in the spectrum of consciousness (all the time) Consciousness is fluid, you can’t cut it as cheese and hold the biggest piece forever. (Sorry for the cheese metaphor I’m from Switzerland 😊 ).

But you can extend your spectrum. And maybe here is the point to compare it with the developmental stages. As we need the “positive parts” as building blocks of the lower stages, so we need the lower “positive consciousness” levels, they both have their usefulness and from “1-2 count” perspective may seem “bad” because they are “low”. But it is a different spectrum. Well, it’s hard to me to explain because it needs not just spectrum, but we’ve got to point to use dimensions… or better multi dimensional spectrums and I better stop here. 😊 because as @Leo Gurasays: as bigger the model as bigger the problem! 😄

maybe I’ve got it all wrong but that’s my personal experience. 😇
 

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

it seems to me like the only requirement for action is intention

It's almost synonimous with desire. We intend to do something because we want something before the intention. 

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

. I might as well intend to raise my arms again just for its own sake

That's impossible. Without a motivating factor. Without desire we can't even blink. 

 

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Let's say I just farted. Is that motivated, or occurs as a physiological process?

There are many subtle muscles that we contract and release inside our body to fart. Every single muscle that we move is done by the power of desire. Nothing in life happens without the energy of desire. Or you can call it intention. But desire is even before the intention itself. Or it is synonimous with the word intent. 

Desire is the energy that runs everything. Even the heart beat, even the growing of a tree is done by the same power. It is the life force itself (it gets esoteric if we were to go deeper) 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Hmm, it seems to me like the only requirement for action is intention

Here's a more esoteric way to answer the same thing. 

"you manifested the rising of the arms" the only way to manifest anything into existence is through the power of desire. You manifested your whole reality and experience by the power of desire alone. The entire universe is just a manifestion of God's desire. Desire alone creates. And desire is love. Desire is kundalini. Life is desire. All movement is desire. Desire is everything. Desire is love. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

On 11/21/2023 at 6:09 AM, Salvijus said:

It's almost synonimous with desire. We intend to do something because we want something before the intention. 

That's impossible. Without a motivating factor. Without desire we can't even blink. 

Hmm. It depends on the distinctions we use and how we define them.

It does seem like intention has some aspect of wanting behind it, but not necessarily desire. Desire is a concept of want without intention. Intention is taking an action. I desire an ice cream now but have no intention of getting one now, I intent to reply to your post.

Quote

There are many subtle muscles that we contract and release inside our body to fart. Every single muscle that we move is done by the power of desire. Nothing in life happens without the energy of desire. Or you can call it intention. But desire is even before the intention itself. Or it is synonimous with the word intent. 

Desire is the energy that runs everything. Even the heart beat, even the growing of a tree is done by the same power. It is the life force itself (it gets esoteric if we were to go deeper) 

I think I'm holding intent the way you're holding desire. Intent sounds like a more accurate term.

If we say that intent runs everything, whose intent is it?

As the way I currently take myself to be, I don't hold myself responsible for the growing of trees, unless perhaps for the ones I might have planted, hypothetically speaking -- I don't recall having planted trees.

On 11/21/2023 at 6:27 AM, Salvijus said:

Here's a more esoteric way to answer the same thing. 

"you manifested the rising of the arms" the only way to manifest anything into existence is through the power of desire. You manifested your whole reality and experience by the power of desire alone. The entire universe is just a manifestion of God's desire. Desire alone creates. And desire is love. Desire is kundalini. Life is desire. All movement is desire. Desire is everything. Desire is love. 

Why is desire love?

By kundalini, do you mean a sort of "life force"?

If desire is everything, how come aversion is experienced?

What do you mean by life -- survival, the persistence of self, or of a body?

And the big banana: what are we referring to by love?

Edited November 24, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If desire is everything, how come aversion is experienced?

Aversion is a desire to avoid, a desire to "push away" , it is a desire to protect the ego. Ego corrupts the pure desire of love which is to expand and embrace everything and turns it for its own selfish goals to protect itself. The desire/intention to protect the ego produces fear, resistence, avoidance, doubt, aversion, sense of danger etc. 

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If we say that intent/desire runs everything, whose intent/desire is it?

Nobody's. The flow of desire energy is simply flowing through an empty body vessel. Ego on the other hand is that thing that is blocking the flow and corrupts the pure stream of God's love energy for its selfish purposes. When the ego is removed. The perfect flow of God's love, perfect heart's desire energy is flowing ceaselessly. Then that one becomes an empty vessel where God's will is being expressed through that particular body and that particular vessel becomes a perfect servant of God. Perfect servant of Love. 

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

By kundalini, do you mean a sort of "life force"?

Yes. 

I think these above answers should give some insight into the other questions you've raised aswell.  

Edited November 22, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

As the way I currently take myself to be, I don't hold myself responsible for the growing of trees

I mean trees and plants have desire. If you put a plant on a windowshell, it will direct its leafs to face to sun to get maximum sunlight. It is by the power of desire that it moves. It has a desire to get sunlight, therefor it moves. Without desire nothing can move. It is the energy, the Shakti of creation that makes everything happen. And this desire is life force. It is intelligent. It is of God. And it is love. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Why is desire (intention) love? 

I'm not sure if this can be answered with words. As the question "what is love" hardly can be answered with words. It has to be a direct experience perhaps to really get a satisfying answer. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Salvijus