Emerald

What specifically about what she shared is false? And what is your rationale for saying that? I’m more than willing to hear you out, but you have to support your stance for me to give your POV any credence.

@Samuel Garcia @ZeroInfinity @Gesundheit I find that a lot of people see humanity as something to get rid of. Since we’re on a Teal Swan related thread anyway, perhaps this video will be helpful in regards to recognizing the issues with thinking that enlightenment “cures” someone of certain aspects of human nature. She just posted it as a throwback on her Facebook, and I thought it was pretty synchronistic given our conversation. Mind you, I’ve not seen it yet. Will watch it now. But resistance to humanity can cause a lot of issues.

We are all self-focused. I’ve already said this a bunch of times throughout the thread. Self-focus is a feature of being a human animal. You can observe this. It’s impossible to get away from self-focus. But the word “selfishness” has a loaded connotation to it that adds certain ideas onto the phenomenon of self-focus that are distortional and/or not actually there. It peppers the reality of self-focus with a lot of projected notions. Also, I never claimed not to have my own biases. Every person does. But a person who is emotionally mature and intellectually rigorous will be able to both honor their own bias AND honor and understand the perspectives and biases of others. And furthermore they will be able to distinguish bias from truth. They will be able to hold space for many perspectives. And this is at the root of why I tend to reiterate women’s biases on here because space isn’t being held for that bias. It is treated like a zero sum game where, if women win that men somehow lose. And that’s a very non-holistic viewpoint. So, it is most beneficial to share under-represented and misrepresented perspectives and biases when certain perspectives and biases dominate. And that’s because it opens up the air for a more holistic and conscious conversation around human sexuality than is currently being had here. Can you be specific at where you saw me claiming that we’re not self focused or claiming that I didn’t have my own biases? What I said is that focusing only from one angle on this topic is a reductive way to look at it. And I never invalidated anyone else’s bias or perspective for that matter... unless the person was sharing an outright falsehood.

Femininity and clinginess don’t always go together. But if what you’re calling “clinginess” is just the drive for emotional intimacy, then yes... you’ll have a very hard time finding a woman who is feminine and in touch with that femininity who isn’t looking for emotional depth and intimacy. Clinginess in the other hand is a symptom of anxious attachment and fear of abandonment. And this can be experienced by both men and women. So, it would be unwise to characterize a women in her healthy orientation as being clingy. You will miss the actual experience of truly experiencing the feminine.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

I understand that. I quite enjoy sparring. With the misogyny and sexism part, though it may not be stated explicitly in these posts, I do see that that's part of what's at the root of his defensive behavior. Misogyny is a way to cope with fears and insecurities relative to women and femininity. And generally, the more fearful a man is of women, the more misogynistic, condescending, and reductive he will be. And the "disagreeability" is just a way to rationalize the defensiveness and insecurity. It's an experience that women have all the time and it has a certain flavor to it that's not easily mistakable. And he has expressed other things in the past that give hints of having a generally unfavorable, defensive, or reductive outlook towards women. These are very accurate litmus tests of whether or not someone has a chip on their shoulder relative to women. This may not be something you notice because you're a man. But it tends to be more obvious from the female perspective because we're used to that flavor.

Enlighten me then. Tell me about your experiences that have gone deeper than my deepest experience. I'd be very excited to hear about that. But be forewarned, you can't tell me the sky is green without me pushing back on it when I've witnessed myself that it is not. Also, I don't know where you heard that I have a hatred towards men. Most of my gender-related issues that I've had to work through have been hatred of women, femininity, and myself as an extension of that. I do sometimes get jealous/frustrated towards men at not having to grapple with these issues to the same degree and/or just simply not understanding nor even really being curious about it. That's my main axe to grind, generally speaking. But if you really desire to share truth/wisdom with others, then you should anchor yourself in what you've actually experienced. And you should examine why you're trying to get my goat by peppering your messages with tons of condescension.

Perhaps some insecurities and fears of inferiority and feeling the need to prove himself by competing with women.

I would say no. But enlightenment is no longer a goal to me as it lost a lot of its meaning to me after the ayahuasca ceremony. But I have experienced both ego death and ego transcendence, and I'm familiar with the perspective. And in my day to day life, there are many times during the day that I become present to what I've heard referred to as the "I am" state. That is, if memory serves correctly about what that term refers to. Basically, I've gotten some distance from the thought-story that ego spins. And in this distance, I am often confronted by the subtle awareness of being in the illusion. That said, I still have an ego. And in certain situations I can go completely into attachment to the ego-mind. I just have a lot more distance from that thought story now. But one thing is for sure. I do (from direct experience) have an abiding awareness of what the ego is... and it definitely isn't the entirety of human psychology. Also, in a state of ego transcendence, you still have all your human functionings (including your psychology). And this is something I've directly experienced as well.

I'm sorry. But I have direct experience that contradicts your views.

What I'm saying is that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're speculating and coming to incorrect conclusions. Also, your humanity is not something to be resisted against or transcended. To attempt to do so is just spiritual bypassing.

@Gesundheit Exactly. Psychological needs are just part of the way that the mind/body works. This doesn't change when we realize the deeper nature of Self. And this is because the human self never becomes enlightened. The human self just plays itself out by the same rules that it was bound by before. The shift of enlightenment is that the universe has woken itself up to realizing that it isn't just this human self. But the human self playing out in this relative reality story still has all the same needs... both physical and psychological. "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water."

If Emerald is not satisfied in a conscious relationships it is not self-loving OR Self-loving to keep the relationship in the current state. The relationship dissatisfaction must lead either to fixing things so that both partners are satisfied... or the relationship must end. Also, funny enough, I was watching a Rupert Spira video yesterday after years of not having watched him. And he expressly said that his perspective wasn't that people should avoid relationship. But people don't need eachother for love... as love is always the case even if all of our needs go unmet... even unto death. That said, people do need loving relationships with one another to fulfill our psychological and emotional needs. We are a social species. Again, all of this is about honoring both the absolute perspective and the relative perspective. So, when Rupert Spira is approaching his teachings, he is focusing more on integrating the absolute perspective. And this is helpful if a person doesn't misunderstand and go spiritually bypassing their human needs. So Rupert Spira isn't going to tell you that enlightenment is going to dispossess you of your human nature and your relative needs as such.

I've just thought up a good analogy that may clear this issues up for people. Let's say that, in this analogy, being authentic and conscious means being up on a horse... squarely in the saddle. Then, on the right side of the horse you have aggressiveness, harshness, and being an asshole. Then, on the left side of the horse, you have passivity, weakness, and being a doormat. Now, people who are up on the horse will be attracted to other people who are up on the horse, as these are people who are whole unto themselves and are anchored in their healthy personal sovereignty. But a high percentage of people (perhaps the majority) are unconscious and dealing with traumas, and don't sit up on the horse. They've fallen over on either side. Most women end up falling on the left side of the horse and becoming a doormat, often due to being indoctrinated that way. So, if an unconscious man wants to attract a woman, the most effective thing he can do is compensate for that is by falling over on the right side of the horse as this will seem to complete what's missing in the woman who has fallen over on the left side. If a woman is missing her ability to be assertive, she will be attracted to and attract men (and other people) into her life that are aggressive to compensate. This creates a co-dependent relationship dynamic. So, if you wonder why "Assholes" are more attractive to more women than "Doormats" (falsely called Nice Guys), then this is why. Unconscious and fragmented people try to find their missing fragments in other people. But if you want to be attractive to someone who's up on the horse, then you have to be up on the horse yourself. That means you have to get in touch with your natural personal sovereignty as opposed to aspiring towards being an asshole. Assholes may get more women than average... but not because that's inherently more attractive to women. It's inherently more attractive to women who have been traumatized a particular way... which is a LOT of women.

Yes, there is Yin/Yang polarity. Complementary polarity creates attraction in a relationship while similarity creates bonding. And part of this is rooted in the biology... though there are other perspectives on polarity as well. The distinction here is that a man who represses his feminine side doesn't become more masculine... and a woman who represses her masculine side doesn't become more feminine. So, those that are on either side of the horse are not any more or less masculine (or feminine) than they already were. They are just repressing parts of themselves. Understand that when I say this, that being on either side of the horse doesn't have anything to do with polarity... it just has to do with a person's psychological state. And a person who is skewed to one side will be attractive to people who are skewed to the other side. But this doesn't have to do with natural polarity... it's a trauma attraction.

Very much so. People will always attract and be attracted to what is repressed in themselves.

You're not enlightened nor do I imagine that you've had any glimpses of that perspective. But if you did have a glimpse at some point, you haven't integrated it well enough. I understand that you're trying to argue because you want to be right, and you react like you seem to think I'm over here just like "Haha! You're wrong" and getting into random keyboard wars with you. You're trying to compete with me for some reason. But I want you to understand that what you're saying is misinformation... and dangerous misinformation at that. If a person (including you) ignores their psychology because you've convinced them that their psychology is an illusion that will go away when they're enlightened, that person may start repressing their psychological awareness. And that person would be in for some really hard times and a constriction (not an expansion) of conscious awareness. So, stop speaking from a space of ignorance as though you're an expert, because there are very real consequences for getting people to believe what you're saying. Your perspective isn't integrative enough yet. Explore deeper and get more firsthand experience.

Claiming that there's no such thing as human psychology on the relative level by looking for them on the absolute level and invalidating the materialist perspective is spiritual bypassing. This will lead you and others into some pretty gnarly psychological issues because you will have invalidated the relative truth of human psychology. Imagine that someone were making this same argument about the existence of germs. And saying, "You're not experiencing these germs directly. Germs are made up by a bunch of unenlightened materialists." And then, you refuse to wash your hands to prove how enlightened you are and how good you are at seeing through the illusions of Maya. And then you catch a disease and die. That's what you will do if you ignore the reality that human psychology is a part of this relative existence.

On the absolute level there are no needs... not even to live. But in the relative human perspective, all your needs are there just the same. Like I said, don't speculate on it. Get some experience and you'll see the distinction between the absolute and the relative and how the relative still runs by the same rules.

Again, the instincts are not the ego, nor is the individual bias. The ego is just the mind’s story of who you are versus who you are not. The instincts are self-interested because that is just a feature of how the body/mind mechanism works. Neither the physiology nor the biology changes with enlightenment. Your heart still pumps blood, your bladder still holds urine, and your psychology still predisposes you with needs for bonding. Your mind/body machine still has the same instincts and needs (both psychological and physical), even if you do see through the illusion that the mind-story called “ego” is real and is you. But the basis of a conscious relationship is not satisfying “Emerald”. The basis of a conscious relationship is satisfying Self. It is seeing the other person as part of Self and holding their best interests with your own. But as far as needing an intimate relationship... most people benefit from having one. But you can also meet your relationship needs through close friendship and family. Ideally, you want a really strong support system that can hold space for you. But men enjoying women’s looks isn’t an outgrowth of ego... nor is women’s desire to be held/contained by a man. These are just a function of the mind/body machine that we are. We can turn these things into part of our ego story... but the instincts are just woven into how the human machine works. If people realised this, then they would not seek love in a relationship as much as they recognise people care about themselves primarily. How is there an escape from that? There isn't (Well enlightenment but you don't quite agree so let's drop that.) Enlightenment isn’t about transcending your humanity. We still have the same human needs for survival and human-to-human love that we did before enlightenment. Enlightenment isn’t meant for spiritually bypassing the human reality. But again, best not for you to speculate about the realities of what it’s like from the enlightened perspective without first having direct experience of what the ego actually is.

Get some experience beyond the ego and get back to me. Too many people here speculating about what enlightenment is without ever having even a glimpse of it. Enlightenment doesn’t dispossess you of your basic human needs... neither physical nor psychological. It doesn’t even necessarily help you clear your psychological baggage... though it can help you do that because when you have transcended the ego perspective and/or dissolved the ego you don’t have to avoid your Shadows to preserve your ego.

I read this as someone who confessed their feelings in the middle of the night when their inhibitions were low. And then texted at noon the next day something to undo the confession for fear of being rejected or too vulnerable. I didn’t read it as fickleness. I read it as a confession and then regretting having confessed.

Seeing someone (or something) as an extension of Self doesn't have to do with dating and relationships. There is unconditional love to be had for all things that are Self. But there is no such thing as unconditional relationship. Relationships require attraction and compatibility. And while that doesn't preclude the homeless or mentally ill from having relationships, it doesn't mean that you have to have relationship to everyone. And yes, a healthy relationship means that both partners are benefiting and enjoying the partnership. If you begin self-sacrificing what you need/want in a relationship for the other person or the other person starts doing that for you, then it is not Self Loving. But the ego is just the self-concept... nothing more. And you can transcend the ego and see through the illusion of self, but relationships will still function conditionally because that is the nature of relationships... egoic or not. It's important not to mince paradigms. There are the more spiritual paradigms of all being one and unconditional love. And then there are the more relative paradigms where there is separation.. and we have to be able to navigate that separation, even if we are in the state of ego transcendence and recognize the 'oneness' of things. So, relationship is not inherently egoic. But it does require you to not bypass the truths of the relative paradigm. Basically, don't invalidate relative truths by writing over them with absolute truths. You must hold space for both perspectives to really orient to life in a wise way. The need for social interaction is a fact of our biology. And to deny the realities of body/mind and to make a distinction and to say that it is invalid is to have a dualistic way of thinking that raises the spiritual perspective over the relative perspective. So, to truly be in a space of non-dual awareness, you must hold space for both the truths of the absolute and the truths of the body/mind reality. Parsing these things out and invalidating relative truths as lesser than the absolute is to create a false dichotomy. Mother Theresa was just as human as anyone else. And she did go through a lot of trauma early in life with losing her mother and had a huge faith crisis in her later years. She was very much human... just as enlightened people are very much human. So, enlightenment isn't about bypassing our human needs. There is a saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water." This means that practical work must still me done even after waking up to the truth of enlightenment. The same is true for meeting our human physical and emotional needs in the relative perspective. In the same way that enlightenment doesn't allow you to forego your physical need for food and water, it also doesn't allow you to forego your emotional needs for connection and community. Enlightenment doesn't exist for you to be able to bypass your humanity. It exists so that you can be fully human and to realize your divine nature. And this may seem strange to you, but your humanity is not lesser than your divinity in existential validity. It is all an expression of the same thing... which is Self. But relationships are for meeting your individual human needs. So, it does have to do with our relative nature that is couched in Maya. But so are our needs for food and water. These needs are unwise to view as something egoic... because they are not stemming from the ego. They stem from the way that our biology and psychological system work. So, whether you are in an egoic perspective or have transcended your ego, you will still need food, water, connection, and relationship. And if you don't get those things, there will be negative physical or psychological consequences. Enlightenment doesn't save you from the psychological consequences of unmet needs. But you shouldn't worry about the ego anyway. If you haven't awoken to the reality of the Self, it will not give you anything to suppress the drives that you assume wouldn't be there if you had. Listen to your emotions and your instincts and don't spiritually bypass them under the understanding that they're "egoic". Egoic won't mean anything helpful to you until you really experience a taste of what it is to transcend or dissolve it. A lot of people repress things because they assume they're egoic, and they end up facing with unnecessary suffering as a result.

Yeah, there is a ton of spiritual bypassing. I think it's mostly because people have a lot of insecurities around sexuality and relationships. It becomes a more comfortable narrative if we can somehow minimize or feel in control of our instincts in this way.