Natasha Tori Maru

That's valid. We don't know for sure. Hearsay (for now).

He has made claims he has autism. It may explain some of the messes he seems to get into.

Maybe we could term awakening as "realising ultimate truth" and enlightenment as "embodying" that truth, which would entail significant work accomplished on our individual conditioning. And residing in equanimity. Overall I am remarkably undecided! What do you think?

What do you mean by awake? Do you refer to siddhis? I think many people do not understand the markers for awakening. And expect all conditioning to be dissolved when it is seen. Integration and grounding. These might be markers of enlightenment, but not awakening. I struggle to even believe in some of our great teachers being enlightened by this definition. They have historically been just so derogatory to women (some of their quoted statements break my heart). We are less than. Awakening cannot transcend incentive structures or biology. Maybe enlightenment could. But what even IS that!

@oOo Thanks for the dialogue

It IS however, foundational at upper stages. In the example described - there is defence & justification in the interaction. No response or acknowledgement (non-engagement) as a boundary would be expected in higher stages of development - don't you think? Not a rhetorically loaded retaliation. Placing one further into disconnection.

@oOo I might make this simpler, if I may. If someone treats you poorly (in your perspective) - do you lower your standards of communication to a form that has the propensity to be interpreted as hurtful, attacking, sarcastic, negative or derogatory? I noticed this behaviour. It is antithetical to connection. Connection is top.

I try not lower myself to standards of interactional rhetoric that are emotionally catalytic if someone is less than charitable to me. And I certainly do not intentionally do so. Unless triggered and projecting. I tried to observe, sandwich in a question. Rather than attack your claim of Coral or deny it. Express what is seen so you may correct my interpretation. An invitation. I try not to explain a person or their behaviour. So I can see how my words of choice were poor "The intent with the sort of language there was "I am hurt, so I want you to feel this way also"." The cleaner version: "The language communicates as though you are hurt and attempting to transmit that hurt." I might brainstorm and propose that there is conditioning present and unintegrated parts of lower stages. But this does not deny the Coral claim. Is it a sound expectation that someone of Coral stage would have successfully worked through this conditioning? I would argue I see parts of Coral. But residing firmly IN the stage is a hard claim to transmit to others without circular reasoning like "you would not know it if you saw it".

By engaging in more relational dialogue to connect, be seen and reveal meaning. Diving into phenomenology, experience, meaning, feeling and thought type questions. To be seen and properly received - and have the person we are within dialogue with affirm this - gets us closer to understanding without projection. Cleanly observing free of judgement, but not divorced from discernment. Interesting question. The epistemology of a person. I ask - I state what I see. I report where things don't align. Asking more questions without expressing my own interpretation. I don't always get it right When I feel emotional charge arise through any sensation whatsoever (even positive), it is generally an indication of my own projections coming into play to cloud my discernment.

I can understand this. But you must have been aware of the inherent mode of your expression, correct? At your level. The intent with the sort of language there was "I am hurt, so I want you to feel this way also". Even if it was not intentional - it appears as unconscious leakage. Something unintegrated. Incongruent. It might not be that way. It just appears so on reading. It also appears very strange to lower our standards for some interactions in such a way.

He's had his day. 15 minutes of fame.

I agree with the expression feeling incongruent. A true, embodied and congruent recognition of other/connectedness typically does not entail the sort of rhetoric employed. But a single interaction cannot act as a diagnosis - which is why further questions and interaction is required. The study of language, precision and decompressing how we express ourselves is normally interwoven in general expression with upper stages. Poorly expressed language is of the crushed form where analysis, observation, perspective, judgement, needs & feelings are compressed into a single one liner. Clouding and obscuring meaning - and hamstringing connection. It is the difference between: and: "I notice you make observations expressing doubt. Lets get into that. I want you to understand how I assess this in myself and others. Ask away." One mode of expression is the compressed thought, observation, perspective, judgement, feeling and retaliation (to make the other person feel what they feel). The other is the properly expressed language to facilitate connection so we are properly understood. Observation. Feeling. Need. Request.

@Sincerity hahaha! It's giving Eat, Pray, Love women's midlife crisis new age spirituality derp ( ⁠⊙⁠_⁠◎⁠)

Stage coral would kiss, makeup and forgive 🥹

Where the fuck is @Ulax when we need him 🥲

I'll be a good girl now

I view this as a function of development and maturity. Not so much MBTI.

@AION GUILTY !!!

We have several members GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Otherwise we are just hammers treating everything as nails

Half the problem is - if the other party doesn't deem that mode of connection useful or contributing to THEIR intention - they will disregard the attempt at connection. Some people are blind to the fact that their points will land and be received with ease when the other person feels truly seen and validated.

It is fair to feel that way. But notice that some of the bad feeling may be due to the contradiction in rejecting others for something you also engage in yourself. While noticing that won't remove the feelings associated with strong individualism, it may help to make it more bearable

But the experience you speak of - it is just one datapoint. There are many factors to consider that may be hidden. And this isn't even to speak of cognitive bias - we each filter out things we do not wish to see so we can confirm a hypothesis.

If disarming was the intention the opposite happened! You guys both armoured up The only way to disarm is to properly relate to each other - understand each others meaning. Be seen. Need relational questions and probing to do that. It is hard to relate to others and receive when we have something to prove. Listening goes out the window.

You will never be seen or understood if all you do is reflect.