Self absorbed

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So emotional mastery is not letting stupid things trigger you. 

In reality, we have no control over whether we're triggered or not, and trying to control it only leads to emotional repression and denial - we turn into a powder keg of repressed emotion, and an explosive outburst becomes much more likely.

 

What we can control is how we respond to being triggered - we can become more unconscious and react from a place of inner resistance, or we can bring attention to that inner resistance and allow it to release, and then respond from a place of non-resistance. Sometimes the best thing is to simply walk away, but it can also feel like the hardest thing because there's something in us that so badly wants to lash out in some way.

[Phil]

8 hours ago, Ges said:

 

Because you're speaking from outside the paradigm. It flies over his head, it just doesn't make sense to him, like at all. Anyone at tier 2 can see this clearly without the shadow of a doubt, and anyone not paradigm-locked inside neo-advaita can at least glimpse it.

Advaita just means not two, nonsecondness. 

Not someone in or at anything, or anything someone is in or at. 

A paradigm would be second, while someone is or at a paradigm would be circular logic, or, a belief loop.

The secondness is suffering (discord of beliefs).

https://youtu.be/_GJdWD8uWvw?si=OdVxV3s58HsAlKUh

 

What is “new nonsecondness”?

For whom is there a “new” “nonsecondness”? 

 

(Doubt is an emotion.) 

Doubt:

By bypassing circular logic / uncertainty, the expression of the emotion doubt prompts a journey of exploration and self-discovery with respect to the unmistakably felt dissonance, fostering confidence and clarity, unveiling self-assurance and empowerment.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Ges said:

 

Very good post.

I would say it's the typical case of repressive/religious upbringing and the traumas/shadows that come with it, except this time it's not Blue, but Green.

Much of this no-self stuff is just denial and self-hatred in disguise of love. I shouldn't love myself (the ego), so let's just pretend I (or it) don't exist to begin with. It's fueled by shame, that loving oneself is bad and sinful, it's just ridiculous. And by extension, others don't exist as well, and they don't deserve love either. Oh wait, we can make room for loving others, but only if they stop existing, those selfish idiots.

 

By the way, Phil does not have emotional mastery. Rather, he is neurotic, and probably has a couple of OCDs. You can see the passive aggression everywhere in his communications, and you can see it in his latest outbursts, no masks are ever sustainable. Not to say he's not good, he's great, but could be a lot greater.

As Advaita simply means nonsecondness, there is no self which is denying, no self of “self-hatred”.

(Hatred is an emotion).

Hatred/Rage:

By bypassing animosity, resentment & hostility, the expression & inherent release of hatred / rage allows for and inspires empathy and compassion, harmony and connection.

 

Not-two refers to any “disguise of love”, by simply pointing out there isn’t that, only the belief. 

 

This is love. 

 

Not-two points out there isn’t an I and a myself, nor an I and an ego. 

 

Advaita doesn’t imply there are multiple separate selves pretending, but points out multiple selves don’t exist to begin with. 

 

Not-two is all-encompassing, pointing out there is no reality of shame, loving oneself (or not), bad, or sinful. There are apparently these beliefs, yet like unicorn there is no reality of ‘these’. 

 

That others don’t exist is not ‘by extension’. Advaita, nonsecondness, directly points to the fact that there is no secondness, such as a self and others. Again apparently these beliefs appear, yet like Bigfoot there is no reality of ‘these’. 

 

As Advaita points out there is no other (second), there aren’t separate selves (others) which are separate of love and do or don’t “deserve love”, no ‘we’ which ‘can make room for loving… ‘others’. 

 

As Advaita points out there is no secondness, there are no others (which could stop existing). What doesn’t exist, such as a Leprechaun, can not stop existing, and can not be selfish.

 

As Advaita simply means nonsecondness, there is no one which has or doesn’t have emotional mastery. There is no one which knows there is, or isn’t, emotional mastery. Again, there is apparently this belief, yet in accordance with Avaita this would be like believing a ghost has emotional mastery. It’s equally as nonsensical as believing emotional mastery has a ghost, as in either case Advaita points to nonsecondness. 

 

As Advaita points out nonsecondness… Advaita points out  ‘he’ is neurotic, ‘he’ has OCD(s), ‘his’ communications, ‘his’ outbursts’, ‘he’s’ not good, ‘he’s’ great, ‘he’ could be greater - are all beliefs. 

[Phil]

@Daniel

What about the notion that it is only beliefs which are triggered (not a self or selves)? 

And as beliefs are triggered, corresponding suppressed emotions (suppressed guidance) are therein triggered as well?

Emotions which as guidance for thoughts / beliefs, may shed empowering light on beliefs related to misidentification. 

This would imply there is not some thing in us which wants to lash out, as emotions are guidance and not things / objects. 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Ges Sorry for anything I've done to you in the past man.  I know I reacted that one time on my Discord.  I feel bad about that.  That was not necessary.  I've done a lot of work on emotional mastery and relationship mastery recently.  That's what I've been developing on here in my own self-help work.

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

8 hours ago, Ges said:

 

Thank you, Joseph. And ditto.

Can I pull a neo-advaita on you here, though? Just for fun and to showcase that we both get it and understand the underlying truth behind it.

I learn from you and other people. I also learn from everything that I interact with, whether animate or inanimate. In one sense, I have no originality whatsoever, because everything I have or demonstrate comes from the other, I don't invent nor create anything from thin air, it all comes to me on its own (even my own mind is not mine and I don't invent my own thoughts). Yet, in another sense, and at the same time, that's what originality actually is. It's the combination, acceptance, and integration of the other into the self. There's no original without the unoriginal. Leo has a blog article or video about this, I think it's called requisite variety, if you're interested or recall. At the same time, here's the caveat, unoriginality only serves to enhance originality. So paradoxically, the more we integrate of each other and the world, the more original we become. It's that poetic and magical. Literally. On the other hand, if we suppress or deny one or the other, it only diminishes our ability to express our own originality, which in turn reflects on others poorly as their originality will necessarily decrease because we're not as original as we can be. It can be horrible.

The way I say this is you want to be both highly integrous and also highly original.  I got this idea from listening to a lot of music and seeing what is more great and less great as artistic creations.  You have to come from some root that is already there, but then you can apply original creative genius too and that's where you can create works that are yes highly integrous, but also highly original.  So you can and should be an original on some level.  And you can and should be integrous on some level.  That's how I currently frame it.  I like the way you framed yours too.

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

10 hours ago, Ges said:

I would say it's the typical case of repressive/religious upbringing and the traumas/shadows that come with it, except this time it's not Blue, but Green.

Much of this no-self stuff is just denial and self-hatred in disguise of love. I shouldn't love myself (the ego), so let's just pretend I (or it) don't exist to begin with. It's fueled by shame, that loving oneself is bad and sinful, it's just ridiculous. And by extension, others don't exist as well, and they don't deserve love either. Oh wait, we can make room for loving others, but only if they stop existing, those selfish idiots.

 

By the way, Phil does not have emotional mastery. Rather, he is neurotic, and probably has a couple of OCDs. You can see the passive aggression everywhere in his communications, and you can see it in his latest outbursts, no masks are ever sustainable. Not to say he's not good, he's great, but could be a lot greater.

Foreseeable shadow issues.  

[Ges]

@Phil I'm sorry man, but everything you've written is just more evidence of paradigm-lock.

 

@Joseph Maynor No harm done, man. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I deserved it somehow, as I have a history of trouble and I can be difficult sometimes.

[Joseph Maynor]

6 minutes ago, Ges said:

@Phil I'm sorry man, but everything you've written is just more evidence of paradigm-lock.

 

@Joseph Maynor No harm done, man. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I deserved it somehow, as I have a history of trouble and I can be difficult sometimes.

 

Higher-level paradigm lock is harder to notice.  That's why it goes under most people's radar.  The Masculine will find subtler and subtler ways to establish Himself at the top of the heap, the hierarchy.  The Feminine will always be there to go get her deluded Man.  There's no end to this.  It's Infinite.  

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Ges said:

@Phil I'm sorry man, but everything you've written is just more evidence of paradigm-lock.

Nonduality simply means not two. Paradigm(s) would be a second or secondness. 

Unconditional love is certainly nothing to be sorry about. 

There is no evidence of a paradigm lock, as evidence is a paradigm. 

Try posting a picture of evidence of nonduality. See?

 

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Higher-level paradigm lock is harder to notice.

Higher-level is a paradigm (levels). 

Try posting a picture of “higher levels”. See?

[Reborn2]

On 3/5/2024 at 6:28 PM, Serenity said:

Lol. Yes.

 

I am wondering quite often when to participate and when just let stuff be lately.

 

Saying nothing when outrageous things are said (ex: sadistic post of someone enjoying war crime) or deluded impostors take themselves for teachers  comes off to me as as weird as trying to help people integrate a new healthier perspective when there is seemingly no will or readiness to introspect.

 

I think I somewhat like better to 'debate' than the first option though. It's less dysfunctional than letting unconsciousness rule and run amok.

 

There's just no logic or rationality anywhere, because logic cannot be applied to spirituality due to it's nature and thus anyone can claim anything and pass it off as insight or some sort of wisdom. It's all based off of personal experiences and so you can't really prove or disprove anything. Any sort of craziness can then be thought about and taken seriously

[Ges]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Higher-level paradigm lock is harder to notice.

 

Nobody likes destroying their castle of sand. Especially the more time and effort they've put in it. It's too much investment to throw away. It's way more comfortable the way it is now.

 

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's why it goes under most people's radar.  The Masculine will find subtler and subtler ways to establish Himself at the top of the heap, the hierarchy.  The Feminine will always be there to go get her deluded man.  There's no end to this.  It's Infinite.  

 

And beautiful!

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 The Masculine will find subtler and subtler ways to establish Himself at the top of the heap, the hierarchy.  The Feminine will always be there to go get her deluded Man.  There's no end to this.  It's Infinite.  

These are exactly the paradigms "you" are "locked in".  This is the bullshit nonsense.  

[Phil]

@Reborn2

Spirituality, as the investigation & discovery of what is absolutely true under any and all circumstances, is neither subjective nor objective (but is absolute). Perhaps that’s ‘the challenge’ as it were… that Truth is not based on personal experience, as a person, people, and experience would all be secondness. 

[Ges]

Sophistry.

 

More on the same topic.

Edited March 6 by Ges

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, Ges said:

Nobody likes destroying their castle of sand. Especially the more time and effort they've put in it. It's too much investment to throw away. It's way more comfortable the way it is now.

Through the veil as it were, ‘for an individual’, there seems to be time & effort and a (separate) self which has put it in. That self is the separate self of thought, and is never actually present. Only implied by thought and always implied to be of a past or future.  

 

Calling nonduality a paradigm or sophistry is calling not two, something (second). The ‘first’ is the separate self of thought. 

 

Nonduality simply means not two (and doesn’t imply what is). 

All meaning (paradigms, sophistry, etc, would be secondness). 

[Ges]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

Calling nonduality a paradigm or sophistry is calling not two, something (second). The ‘first’ is the separate self of thought. 

 

You think non-duality is not a thought, that's the paradigm you're locked in.

[Phil]

Just now, Ges said:

 

You think non-duality is not a thought, that's the paradigm you're locked in.

“Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”. 

 

‘Zooming out’ as it were… just some meaningless words that point… 

Happiness. Completeness. Fulfillment. Peace. Effortlessness. Wholeness. Love. 

[Reborn2]

19 minutes ago, Phil said:

@Reborn2

Spirituality, as the investigation & discovery of what is absolutely true under any and all circumstances, is neither subjective nor objective (but is absolute). Perhaps that’s ‘the challenge’ as it were… that Truth is not based on personal experience, as a person, people, and experience would all be secondness. 

Right, it is post rational as in, it is supposed to transcend rationality. But my point is, if you throw away rationality and logic you can very quickly and easilly end up in a crazy territory

[Ges]

Just now, Phil said:

“Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”. 

 

It's pretty easy to see that thought is a duality, but can you see that it's also non-duality at the same time?

[Phil]

@Reborn2

Seemingly sticklerish perhaps, but post rational is a misnomer, as awareness (of the thought) can’t be post, after or beyond the very thought awareness is being & aware of. Rationality & logic being the thoughts, rationality & logic isn’t a throwing away of any thing, but is a recognition of the actuality (of rationality & logic).