Forestluv

@Juan First I'll tell you what is arising within me after reading your response: Ayahuasca is another psychedelic tool, yet ime I would not say it has anymore power than other psychedelics. It is it's own powerful "teacher". It may resonate for some, it might not resonate for others. You mentioned you have tried several different psychedelics and they did not resonate with you, it may that psychedelics in general are not resonating with you or that those particular three psychedelic teachers did not resonate with you. One other thing with Ayahuasca ceremonies are the communities. If you continue this route, I would strongly encourage you to do a lot of research to find one you personally resonate with. The community atmsosphere has a major impact on experience. It is not just you tripping at the ceremony, there is an energetic group tripping as well. I researched for two months before deciding on one. I contacted people who had done the retreat there and I contacted the leaders. The Aya ceremony was filled with highly conscious beings and there was a depth of love present I never knew existed. With that said, one message I got after my third Aya retreat was to never discourage or encourage another person to attend their first Aya ceremony. Mother Aya made it absolutely clear to me that the answer is within them. So I am not encouraging or discouraging you. This answer is within you. For me, there was an inner calling to do it. That inner calling kept coming back and I had to travel across the world to honor it. I later found that it was Mother Aya calling me. Perhaps others also have experienced that, perhaps not. It's just my experience. Whichever path you take, I love you just the way you are.

Oh not too personal at all. I love exploring this stuff. I have a habit of over-sharing. lol This is just my experience and sense of the video. For me, it was extremely strong in empathetic, emotional and intuitive modes. These modes dominated my experience and I was only functioning at about 20% intellectual. I had some difficulty following the intellectual line at times because my other systems were on full blast. These impressions aren't intellectual. As I watched the video, I wasn't analyzing the exchange. There was just a sense, a type of knowing, a connection. It wasn't until afterward that I tried to convert those other languages into verbal intellect. About 90% of language is nonverbal and energetic. Sometimes I pick up more of it, sometimes less. The below may seems analytical, yet I wasn't thinking this stuff at the time. Right out of the gate, my empathetic system got turned on big time. Insecurity, anxiety and vulnerability was intense. I connected with it and "felt" it. I know this dynamic well from my own direct experience and working with many students with this dynamic. Ime, there are special skills to work well with it. It is like threading a needle with little margin of error. . . I could just tell, yet in terms of it's expression . . it was his body language, his hat, his eyes, looking down, how he first started talking, his hesitation. He did not want to be on camera and be seen. I "knew" right away that the primary dynamic in this moment is insecurity and vulnerability. Whatever the other "issue" was was secondary. There is no way to channel to the secondary issue without first connecting to the primary issue. Even if the only output was loving him within his primary issue that would be a "success", imo. Trying to bypass the primary issue and hit the secondary issue isn't going to work, it will be counter-productive and can cause harm, such as a micro-trauma. Right away, there was an uneasiness with the interaction. I think she sensed his uneasiness, yet did not empathetically connect with him at all. Once the empathetic system is activated, it communicates with the intuitive. Ime, if the empathetic system becomes to strong it is overwhelming and interferes with communication. I literally start to lose consciousness of who I am and who he is and whose experience is whose. Yet at a moderate empathetic level, there can be powerful communication with intuition and just knowing and acting, without thinking. He was in an extremely vulnerable position. There is a delicateness about it. It is like revealing a glass sculpture of yourself. I have experienced this many times and I felt that guy big time. The other person needs to handle that glass sculpture with a delicate love and appreciation - without "trying". It has to be genuine and that comes from one's own direct experience with it. I know how it feels when someone handles that glass sculpture of me roughly and I know how it feels when someone drops that glass structure. As soon as there is a hint of that happening, that glass sculpture goes straight back into the safe and defense mechanisms arise - different emotions such anger, frustration, avoidance arise and the intellect fires up. That's exactly what happened in this scenario. Once that glass sculpture gets threatened and put back in the safe, it aint coming back out. She could sense his discomfort yet was not emphatically and intuitively connected. A lot of this was her mannerisms and vibe. She called him up and pretty much directed him to take a seat. He hesitated and wanted to back out. He mentioned the camera. She insisted he come forward and take a seat. The camera issue was a big deal in his vulnerable space and she nonchalantly motioned the camera crew to stay off his face, then again told him to sit down. This made me cringe. You just don't shut the door on someone in this vulnerable space. You can encourage them to enter, yet they need to enter own their own choice and you have to leave a door open. There is a manner of being in which you extend love and let them know you love them whether they can come forward or not and you let them know they are allowed to leave the space whenever they want and you will love them no matter what. She just didn't do this. It was business as usual as she gave him instructions and nonchalantly instructed the camera crew. It was her body language, the subtle sighs, her eyes. Yet I also could emphatically feel her. I also know that dynamic. Students come to my office all the time. I advise students all day. Sometimes I get behind on time. Empathetic communication is extremely energetic draining. I know how it feels when I have to "try" to connect. When I have to put effort into it and it just isn't flowing naturally. I also know the dynamic of doing it all day with an audience in the background. It's really hard to do, especially for extended periods. I sensed that in Abraham. Sometimes it's just not "there". There was a sense of "Ok, next person take a seat. Oh you are uncomfortable and don't like cameras? Camera crew stay off his face. C'mon up. C'mon sit right there in the chair." She just wasn't in touch with the primary issue of insecurity and vulnerablity. He was totally exposed and reaching out to be loved". She made an attempt to emotionally connect by talking about how the emotional response to seeing others in pain. Yet that is the secondary issue. She connected with the primary issue when she told him she can sense he is a "deep feeler, much deeper than most people". The energetic dynamic changed and a channel could have been established. His demeanor changed and said "Yes, yes that's it" a few times. But it was still a weak connection. . . I knew right there if she said "BUUUUT. . . " and pivots it's game over and the glass statue is back in the safe. That glass stature is deep I Amness. Deep personal existence and it is extremely vulnerable here. And this was attached to his secondary issue of the external suffering. Any hint that that experience is "wrong", "invalid", is "unworthy" etc. is an indirect threat to the vulnerable glass statue and one needs to secure that safety first. Not through strategy or techniques. Though communicating nonverbally that I love you for you. Whatever arises you are loved in this moment. Whether you feel or think doesn't matter. I will love you know matter what. This doesn't come through the intellect. It can flow through words. Yet it can also come through gentle loving eye contact, facial expression and a gentle smile. She established weak emotional connection with very little empathetic connection and as soon as she said BUUUUUT, and pivoted to a different viewpoint, I knew it was over. That glass statue went back in the safe, defense mechanism went up and she no longer had a chance to establish connection to the primary issue. Regardless of her intention, the impact was she essentially threatened his primary issue. And it went all down hill from there. She was overemphasizing the secondary issue and never formed any connection. She talked over him, corrected him and at one point looked over him and asked the audience if they are ok if they go on talking more. She had no human connection with him and even talked over him to ask everyone else if this taking too much and if they are still interested. This re-enforces the whole protective energy of the man. Again, it's easy for me to sit here and critique her. I know how hard it is to do in real-time especially when tired and in front of an audience. Sometimes it's just not there and I've been disconnected many times within a similar dynamic. Yet, these types of things prevent the empathetic channel. The last thing I want to mention was about her vibrational energies / frequencies message. Without an actual vibrational energetic connection with the man in that moment, this message comes across as abstract ideas "out there". She spoke of vibrational frequencies, yet was not in tune with the actual vibrational frequencies between her and the man in that precise moment. If there was an energetic connection they were both experiencing in that moment, the message would have been incredibly powerful. You can feel it through eyes and faces. Both people have to let their guard down and be open to it. It's extremely intimate and vulnerable. If one person tries to force it, it comes across as creepy and threatening to the guarded person. Yet she was not in tune with their energetic dynamics in the moment and he became closed down and could not receive. I think she became overly concerned about helping someone through a secondary dynamic to a place she thought would be beneficial to him. I find it much better to first connect and get in tune with what is happening between us in this moment right now. In a vulnerability dynamic, I also think its important express unconditional love in that moment regardless of whatever that person believes or feels. Then the secondary issue can be delicately addressed. I would have offered suggestions as other viewpoints and through my energetics made clear it was ok if the person wanted to hold onto their viewpoints. There would have been a safe togetherness feel. "How can we. . . ", "Let's explore together. . . ". Any hint that you have the wrong view and this is why you are upset is an indirect threat to that vulnerable glass statue. It is an indirect rejection of that person. That is not the intent, yet it is the impact. In other dynamics that do not have a strong vulnerablity component, this would not work. With someone who has a big personality and is looking for an intellectual debate, the dynamics are completely different. It's really hard to develop high intuition to just act through intuition in the flow.

@Nahm That is one interpretation of a dynamic. I sense a different dynamic. What I sense is that Abraham was unable to emphatically connect and understand the underlying emotional dynamic in the man. This was a main cause of the confusion, tension and separation that arose in the man. I think she overemphasized intellect and tried to use emotion, yet due to an inability to connect through empathetic channels she did not connect to the emotional frequency of the man. When I watch the video, I can feel both Abraham and the man and enter an empathetic channel with each. To me, they are on different channels. Talking about emotions is nowhere near empathetic channels of emotional connectivity.

It sounds like you realized that "you" are not the author of your thoughts. The old concept was that "you" controlled your thoughts, actions and emotions. There is now awareness that that "you" does not exist. The concept of "you" simply needs to be updated to reflect that realization. Simply update it based primarily on your direct experience.

I think you are touching upon intellectual and emotional beliefs. A mind may intellectually believe a person is evil and a body may emotionally believe a person is evil. This was one thing I realized a few years ago. For example, I worked through a lot of childhood issues intellectually and thought I was done. I didn’t have intellectual issues with it anymore. Yet I hadn’t realized how deep it goes. There were deeper emotional and body memory issues I hadn’t worked through. It seems when both mind/body and intellect/emotion “get it” there is embodiment.

@Nahm I think we may be using the terms “add” and “meaning” differently. Perhaps the terms “arises” and “impulse” would be better in this context. As well, the terms “absence” and “prior to” are not quite accurate, yet I don’t know better terms. By absence, the term “Mu” or “null void” may be better suited. And of course terms like “arises” and “prior to” use a framework of a timeline. Yet, a timeline can be useful to understand distinctions, ime. I like to be fluid with distinctions and flow back and forth between high distinction and low distinction as appropriate for context of discussion, yet at times it can be difficult to communicate that. It is a skill I’m still working on. The comment on distinctions wasn’t sarcastic. It would be the same as saying I’m happy looking at Chicago from a national map of the U.S. or a city map of Chicago. They both have value depending on context. I think at times one person may say “Let’s speak English” and then starts speaking in Spanish. I think Hicks did some of that and it caused confusion. She starts off agreeing with the man that “these are horrific, unspeakable acts”. She goes further and says “everyone agrees with that”. She is assigning universal objective morality. The acts are horrific and every agrees. She then pivots and goes off into a rift of relativism in which “each of us creates our own reality”. At the end she goes back to universal objectivism. Each time he said the acts were horrific, she firmly corrected him that they are actually “variety”. Yet now her universal objective position differs and contradicts her original one. I imagine a child that is upset because his friends told him there is no Santa Claus that brings toys. His Mom clearly tells him there is a real Santa Claus that brings toys and that everyone agrees with that. There is no question about that. She then goes on saying that we create our own versions of Santa Claus and toys - and depending on what we create we can be happy or sad. This would cause confusion. Then the Mother says there actually is a real Santa Claus that brings dental floss. The child is confused and says Santa Claus brings toys. The Mother corrects him and says, "no, Santa Claus brings dental floss". There would be a lot of confusion and upset in the child. I'm not surprised at all the guy became more confused and upset during the conversation. I think there are nuggets of value within what she said, yet overall it was delivered awkwardly with some internal contradictions. That’s just my take tho. I can see how it can be interpreted differently.

@mandyjw Nice contemplations. Thank you. In the past I was hyper intellectual and then I went to the other extreme that thinking is “bad” and I need to shut it off. I’m realizing more and more that they are a group of musicians playing together in the band. Intellect and emotion integrated together, cooperating. Sometimes they play together, sometimes intellect has a solo. Sometimes emotion has a solo. Emotion is like the drums in a jazz band. I used to think the drums were a secondary instrument in the background that made a bunch of noise. Yet I’ve cone to appreciate the drums and their contribution. They are beautiful. Regarding darkness, I notice I have a tendency to group stuff as “negative” emotion or datkness. Yet when I look closer, some of that darkness isn’t so dark. For example, sometimes I feel a deep sadness. I may listen to sad songs and become really sad for an afternoon. I would generally think that sadness is dark and something I should move away from. Yet that one afternoon I just allowed the sadness to enter and I went with it. It had a beautiful quality to it. There was a love and connection present. An essence in the present moment. I shared this with a couple friends and their response was the same “Oh no, what’s wrong? What can I do to help?”. Yet it wasn’t like that.

@Nahm I would say absence is prior to relative. But yea, we could remove that distinction if we wanted to. I find it helpful in distingishing relative/absolute, dual/nondual. Yet those can be integrated. In the video, there is absence if meaning. The man added in relative meaning “horrific”. Hicks added in relative meaning “variety”. And in this post I am adding in relative meaning. The dog across the street looking at me type this adds in different relative meaning. My main issue with Hicks is the addition of a “chooser” that is choosing the meaning. Yet of course this is more meaning my mind-body is adding. . .

The term traglotive was absent a minute ago before I made it up. Relative meaning can now be assigned to it. It will have various meanings relative to different people, frogs, birds etc. . .

I would say relativity is absent in absence. Relative meaning arises from absence.

@mandyjw That’s an interesting view regarding frequency holders and doers. I’ve never thought of it like that before. Along these lines, I think Abraham Hicks introduces a “chooser” into the mix. I think if she stayed within the frequency and doer framework it would have been clearer. To me, adding in a chooser muddied the waters. Also, I think there is value in honoring and experiencing emotion. The guy was experiencing deep pain for those that are suffering. I think there is a balance between experiencing that emotion as part of the human experience without labeling it as something “wrong” and also being open to becoming more aware what is occurring in one’s mind and growth that can arise from it. To me, Hicks was often balance and there was an underlying theme his emotions and perspective needed fixing. To me, Hicks had a well-intentioned subtle agenda to steer him toward a new perspective that she believes would be beneficial to him. I prefer an atmosphere that is based more on curiosity, exploration and discovery.

@Nahm To me, this seems like a lesson in relativity and absence of meaning. What I don’t understand is her insistence that there is a *you* that can create reality. She seems to be using “you” in the traditional illusory context. That there is some thing called “you” in the mind that is running the show and just needs to make better choices for the mind-body to feel better. In some contexts I think this can be helpful, like telling children there is a Santa Claus can make them feel better. Yet in the context of the video, I think a large part of his inner turmoil was attachment and identification to an illusory “you” and she fed that delusion by telling him things like “you” create reality. Even if we alow this assumption of a “you” that is in control, I think she gave a conflicting message. She would say things like “Yes, these are horrible, unspeaking acts - noone is arguing with you there”. Then she would say something to the effect of “Rather than believing that the child being beaten is suffering, just believe that the beaten child is experiencing variety and you will feel better”. To me, she is giving meaning by saying the acts are horrific and then pivots and says just think that the acts I just agreed are horrific are “variety”. I think this caused confusion within the exchange. Within her free choice message, I think it would have been better to say “you can see the acts as horrific or you can see them as variety. It’s your choice. You create your own reality”.

@Mikael89 We don’t know for sure what happened to him, yet mocking someone’s suicide is over the line. Please tone it down,

An experience of such profound intimate connection that tears arise.

I agree. I don't think she is oriented toward levels, realms etc. Yet she seemed very oriented toward will and choice imo. I can see her point that the man is suffering in his mind-body and I suppose there is value in using a theme that he is creating his own reality. Yet to me, this is misleading because it suggests there is a real "me" that is driving the car and can make choices. A few times she addressed vibrational energies that arise. So, my question would be. . . why not go straight to the vibrational energy and sensations? Why not draw awareness to energy dynamics and sensations that arise? And draw awareness to how those sensations are interconnected to thought impulses and energy dynamics in the environment? Why introduce the illusory self into the mix and suggest the illusory self has illusory power to make illusory choices? To me, it seems misleading. The guy totally anchored into the whole idea of the self and it seemed like a distraction. I'm not sure why she diidn't just stick with vibrational energy, sensations and thought impulses.

Thank you, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments and your perspective. I've been working to balance intellect / analysis / conceptualization with creativity / emotion / intimacy / intuition. Others may call in yin and yang or masculine and feminine etc. Your experience and perspective is really helpful. Hopefully not just for me, yet for others. A couple weeks ago i was immersed in nature and had deep connections with mother nature / earth. She is a wise teacher. I've become more and more aware about an overemphasis on thinking and analysis and neglecting/repressing feelings. I think many of us are conditioned to figure things out and make sense of things. Yet I'm learning more about how emotions are a language and how thoughts and emotions interact within my body. They are so closely related that sometimes the distinction between the two dissolves. I agree that many men are conditioned to think that "feeling make me weak" and that is a big problem in terms of learning the emotional language. Consider this: how many distinctions do we have within the intellect? We have thousands of words and millions of possible ways to describe something. How many distinctions do we have for emotions? How many words? A dozen or so? Sometimes I ask people how they are feeling and they paused stumped. Perhaps someone before going out on a second date. They are immersed in thought trying to figure stuff out. Trying to plan and give meaning to everything. I ask how they feel. "Huh? I don't know. I guess I feel a little nervous, kinda. Maybe it's excitement? Or sorta kinda hopeful? I'm not really sure". Then I ask "what have you been thinking". Without any hesitation they go off on a long-winded detailed explanation of the story going on in there head. Imagine if emotions were top dog and we put 95% of our time and attention into emotional awareness instead of being in our head 95% of the time. We would now have thousands of words and descriptions for emotions. Someone would immediately know they are feeling a mixture of insecurity, attraction, excitement, hope and intrigue. There would be a word for this combination - actually dozens of words for this combination because each component can be mixed with different weights. Just like making a smoothie. Yes, it seems like people can get trapped into emotional traps, similar to getting caught into intellectual traps. Regarding this work as being emotionally amazing. . . do you think that this analogy is fair?. . . Imagine someone that is feeling unsatisfied in life and immerse in life's problems. They want to make some positive changes and decide to start a Yoga program. This could be a great way to meet new healthy people and improve their physical, emotional and spiritual health. Yet after a few weeks the person is full of negativity about how they aren't doing it right, their progress is too slow, everyone else is better, their life still sucks, it's so hard to stay discipline, it's so much work and on and on. . . the join an online message board to complain and then start getting into debates about which Yoga tradition is the best, who were the best Yogis, the proper way to do Yoga etc. Is this a similar case in which you might say "Wait a minute. . . engaging in Yoga as a lifestyle is supposed to feel AMAZING. You are essentially cultivating human connection with others, self love for yourself, improved balance, strength, attention and awareness that increases quality of life. If so, do you think that there are also growing pains during learning Yoga? It's not always easy. It can be challenging and uncomfortable. Yet we can see these times of challenges and discomforts as wonderful progression stages as we become healthier. Working through each hurdle allows for deeper human connection, love and harmony. In this case, we are acknowledging that there are some brief periods of discomfort within an overall path of greater love, compassion, warmth, creativity, harmony, greater possibilities etc. My question here is whether you see value in both dark and light themes, which ideally would be balanced. Or if you see dark themes as more of a stepping stone toward light themes. I notice many people get immersed into dark theme vortexes in which they just swirl around in. Themes like "my life sucks and women hate me". They seem to want to move past that yet are stuck. When given suggestions about how to grow they seem to want to stay in the "life sucks" mode. I can value in acknowledging the emotion. Yet isn't this an emotional loop of negativity that ideally is moved through? As well there are loops like "the world is filled with evil and misery, how can love exist?". There is also this dynamic in which people seem to get stuck it. Yet I also think "dark" themes can have deep emotional and human value. Consider a relationship in which someone deeply loved their partner. The break up and feel deep sadness. To me, this type of sadness arose from the deep love and I think there is value in deeply experiencing that sadness. It can be a profound human experience and allow many insights to arise. For me, the sorrow that results from love carves deeply into my being. Like a knife that carves a cavern into my being. And this more expansive cavern increases the space to love even deeper in the future. It's beautiful and a very different dynamic than the "people are low conscious and suck" type of negativity. I've noticed that same dynamic. It is a mentality that I will overcome all and claim enlightenment. As if this is some mountain to be conquered. And once I conquer the mountain I will stand on the top in victory and slam my personal flag into the ground and claim this mountain as mine. I see that type of mentality here. I also see it in real life. A couple weeks ago, I was in Sedona hiking around a mountain. Most people there were hyper focused on getting to the top. To reach the goal. To overcome the mountain. My girlfriend and I hiked halfway up and stopped. We looked around and starting feeling mother nature. We just felt like we were not supposed to climb higher. It was like mother nature told us to go down into the trees and streams so she can teach us. We went down and explored and it was absolutely amazing. The integration of nature. Everything in harmony. There was this beautiful connection, essence, love. At one point we cried. It was so beautiful. I think this applies to the spiritual path as well. I often feel connected to "spirit guides". I feel so humble and it's so intimate. Like a loving teacher guiding me along. I think this type of connection is really important for spiritual growth. A lot of people use the term "God" in a different context - that God is infinity, absolute, everything. I like the view you raise masculine / feminine balance. Yin - Yang balance. There are so many features that can be in balance. Firm and delicate in balance. I also agree that many people are constricted within their own gender construct and don't even realize it. This limits one's potential so much. I've been doing a lot of yin yoga with teachers that really balance what would seem to be opposites,. Grounding and groundlessness. Contraction and expansion. Firm and gentle. It has really opened me up to new possibilities. I totally agree and also feel that the dynamics and feel are way off balance. When I go to yoga forums with 90% women, the vibe is so different. Here I do sense off balance toward intellect, debate, figuring shit out, assertiveness, aggression, defensiveness etc. Threads about improving our emotional intelligence, our capacity to love, creativity, right brain development, intimacy etc. Get drowned out with intellectual threads involving debate or trying to figure stuff out intellectually. Imo, one of the most beautiful threads on the forum is "show us your creativity". It is absolutely beautiful. I wish we could have more of that on the forum to balance things out. As well, I've seen a lot of yin get shouted down and dominated by yang. I've seen yin appear get shouted down and then leave. I too would love to see more of a balance. I really appreciate your views and comments

I found that to be a very interesting interaction between personality dynamics. During the first part of the conversation, I think Abraham-Hicks did a good job at trying to acknowledge the man's perceptive and to try and show she understands it. It looked like she connected for a bit. She touched upon free will and "vibrational energies" which pointed to trans-personal and trans-human levels. I also thought she did a good job at diagnosing what is occurring in his personality dynamic. Yet, I think she made a mistake in allowing the discussion to stay in the relative personal level and play by personal level rules. He was clearly immersed within a personality dynamic and through most of the conversation she played on that level. I think she should have stayed firm in the trans-personal realm and only dip into the personal realm to pull him up. My hunch is she has not fully transcended the personal level. She spoke as if she believed there is a person with free will making choices. Several times she said things to the effect of "just change the meaning of something". Instead of pain and suffering, let's just call it "variety" and we are good to go. She also said something like "ignorance is bliss if giving it a negative meaning causes discomfort". To me, trying to play the "good" vs "evil" game on the relative personal level comes across as bizarre and distorted. Once you allow the assumption that there is a real person with free will that makes choices, it's game over on the relative personal playing field. That means murderers and rapists have free will and are choosing to do what they do freely. And the rest of us can just choose to call things like torture and rape as simply experiences of "variety" rather than pain and misery. In doing so, won't get upset about it anymore and can be happy. . . To me, this is really lame. A few times she touched upon the trans-personal level yet kept diving back down to the personal. To me, I think it would have been much better to stay firmly grounded on the trans-personal level and address the illusory construct of the persona, lack of free will, the relativity of personal views (from a trans-personal meta view) and the absolute. I'm not sure why Abraham-Hicks didn't do that. I understand he was immersed in the personality, yet the only way to get through his dilemma, imo, is to get up to the trans-personal level.

I fully support this type of exploration into the natural of consciousness. And I appreciate the author's attempt at integrating published work. However, it's just ill-defined. All it really says is that altered brain activity is correlated with perception. This is totally obvious. Sleep, drugs, strokes, hypoxia, NDE, TBIs - of course they will all affect perception. The only point he touched on that I found interesting was in regards to recontextualization. That is the transition from one pattern of brain activity to another pattern of brain activity and how perception is contextualized. However, he barely touched on this and I don't think he is aware how deep that question would go. Regarding his usage of "brain impairment". He doesn't define the term - yet he is calling deviations from "normal" brain activity to "altered brain activity" to be "brain impairment". I don't think "impairment" is the best term for all conditions because it has an underlying value assumption. Yet I understand how he is using the term in the context of his essay. What I found more disappointing was his usage of the term "self transcendence". I appreciate his effort to write an essay on this and help to raise societal awareness, yet his idea of self-transcendence is extremely limited and he has obviously not had direct experience with this. I think the vast majority of actualized members would give a better description of self transcendence. He defines it as: ‘self-transcendence’ is defined as the abrupt—thus not gradual— broadening of one’s sense of self through a step-function enrichment of one’s subjective inner life. This can happen, for instance, when one suddenly acquires (a) a feeling that one is no longer confined to the spatio-temporal locus of the physical body; (b) entirely new mental skills that one has never attempted to develop through learning or training; or (c) unfamiliar emotions, insights or inner imagery. Those are variations of sensation and perception, not self transcendence. . .

Beautiful. Sometimes I need to remind myself that we are all on the same team

@tsuki Thank you for your insights on spirituality and cultures. Last week I had a long conversation with a religious history scholar. Some of his comments echoed yours. About how religion / spirituality was shaped within the context of culture and served the culture. Sometimes I view religions / spirituality from the lens of my own culture at this time in history. It can be mind expanding when I really think about what the culture was like during previous time periods and how culture and religion/spirituality interacted with each other and shaped each other. You offered a few points I had not considered and that helps expand my perspective.

I'm hoping you can tell me more about your perspective here. I have a background that had been dominated by analysis - earlier in my life I was hyper-analytical and hyper-logical. Many people would describe this as "Masculine". Over the last several years, I've spent a lot of time working on non-intellectual modes of being. I'm interested in learning from a perspective that calls out Masculine intellect from a feminine perspective. As well, my sense on the forum is that it can get off balance toward more masculine analysis and intellects at the expense of more "feminine" such as creativity, emotion, empathy and intuition. I feel that these perspectives are really important for balance on the forum. When you say "balance things out to fully grasp truth on a deep level" what do you mean by "balance things out"? Are you referring to modes of being more associated with feminine? Such as emotional and empathetic modes? As well, can you explain what you mean by using this balance to help others that are struggling? Again, would this mean relating to them on emotional and empathetic levels? I encounter this quite often as a science teacher and it is an area I want to improve in. Some of my student evaluations feel similar to your comment. Sometimes I get the sense I have forgotten how hard it is to learn stuff as a student and the struggles that go along with it. This can limit my ability to connect with students on emotional and empathetic levels. I'm curious if this is the type of thing you are sensing here.

@How to be wise Those are some nice insights. I would just add that I've found that perceptions and beliefs are not limited to thoughts. With enough practice, the mind can go extended periods without thoughts. My mind has gone about 10min or so without a thought. It is an amazing experience of beingness. And I've learned there are still beliefs and perceptions without thoughts that shape my reality.

Thank you for this response. I can come across as being abrasive at times. It is something I am trying to develop better skills with. Yes, I think we agree a lot. I think your view has a lot of value in many situations. As well, I am not an expert in this area. For all I know, your advice is perfect in this situation. Who knows, maybe her reaction was due to fears and insecurities and it is something she can work out by taking a look at herself and working with her bf. That is not my impression tho. And I apologize for the comment suggesting computer jockeying. I can relate to people that are trying to break free of abusive relationships and the pain and suffering endured by staying in abusive relationships. As well, I used to over-conceptualize a lot and I would talk a lot about things I lacked direct experience in. This aspect of me may have been triggered and I may have written what I wish someone told me years ago. I can see how that comment wasn't entirely fair and I would rephrase it if I could.

I read your responses and I fully understand what you are saying. To me, it sounds like there is disconnect going on at the human level - in particular the empathetic mode of being. Empathetic understanding comes from direct experience. I developed this understanding after going through abusive relationships and working with dozens of women that had gone through abusive relationships. Before this experience, I lacked this empathetic understanding. I am not talking about compassion. I am talking about a high level of empathetic understanding that is gained through direct experience. I also lack empathetic understanding in some areas, for example I have a deficiency in empathetic understanding of going through the insanity of post-partum disorder. I can imagine how difficult it is and have compassion, yet I lack empathetic understanding since I do not have direct experience of going through the insanity of post-partum. I understand you gave the best advice you could. I understand you have good intentions. I understand that it is based on life experience. What I am saying is I don't think it is the best advice for the current situation. I think it has a lot of value in a different situation. Part of personal awareness is understanding one's own direct experience and how that may affect their perspective. This is an understanding and awareness that comes from maturity. There is only one way to get direct experience and that is through direct experience. It cannot be figured out or bought. It often takes a looong time and can be extremely uncomfortable. For example, I would have given advice similar to yours when I was younger. I then got direct experience being in an abusive relationship and I worked for years volunteering with abused women in a clinic. This experience changed my perspective. Based on both direct experience with abusive relationships at both the personal and social level, I believe your advice is not the best and I explained why. There are power and emotional dynamics in abusive relationships that run deep. Furthermore, giving advice to abused women should not be taken lightly. This is serious business with serious consequences. Those that have been abused and have worked with abuse victims understand this. After all this experience, I can say that for abusive relationships your advice is not good for a woman trapped in an abusive relationship trying to leave - yet unable to leave. The advice can actually be damaging. I am not saying you are doing this intentionally. I understand you have good intentions. Developing deeper understanding requires direct experience. There are things I have direct experience with and have worked through that I am comfortable with. There are also areas in which I do not have direct experience and I would not offer advice. If I did, I would understand the limits of my direct experience and I would be open to those with more direct experience. When I volunteered to assist abuse women I went into it with a sense of openness and humility. This helped me learn a great deal. If I went in with a defensive attitude that my direct experience was already sufficient and nobody better suggest I have a deficiency - then I would have been closed off to learning. Similarly, there are many areas in which I have little direct experience. For example, I do not have direct experience as being a parent. If there was a parent with serious problems with their child asking for help, I may offer some suggestions with good intentions. Yet if people that are actually parents with years of direct experience as parents came in and said my advice is not the best because I am not considering a few things, I would be open to their direct experience. Direct experience is King. There is no substitute. I would understand that my view is limited due to a lack in direct experience. As well, I do not have direct experience of being a woman, being a minority, being homosexual or transgender. I've never been pregnant, gone though a divorce or gone through custody battles. I have never lived in a war-torn country. I have never experienced military bombings and the devastation it causes on communities and families. I have no direct experience in the military. I have never been through that training and I have never shot someone. I have never experienced a comrade being shot. There are times in which I can try to imagine this situations and offer my input and support with good intentions, yet I am very aware of my limitations of direct experience and I am cautious how I speak about these issues. I value the direct experience of others in these areas and I am open to learning from them. Over and over on the board there are members with direct experience that I lack offering their experience. I totally welcome that. There are other areas I have extensive knowledge and direct experience. Part of developing emotional, empathetic and social intelligence is being aware of this. One of the biggest blocks I see with personal growth and consciousness work are people assuming they have understanding without direct experience. They speak out thinking they understand, yet are unaware of their lack of experience and the value of that experience. Even in this area, I am well aware there are people that have experience that I lack. In particular, the perspective coming from a woman. Being a man in an abusive relationship has different dynamics that being a woman in an abusive relationship. I understand this and realize I have limitations to my direct experience. And the comment about how it's easier to conceptualize in comfort than undergo actual direct experience also comes from direct experience. I accumulated a lot of knowledge and concepts about abuse, racism, PTSD, panic disorders, anxiety disorders etc. There is nothing wrong with that, yet I had no idea how limited my understanding was until I started experiencing it myself and working directly with those that suffer from these things. It is an entirely different area of understanding that does not come through conceptualization. Yet that does not mean conceptualization is bad, it just means it is limited.

I understand that. Imagine being in a trap and being abused. Then someone comes along and says "find resolve and take ownership of your life". That sounds like a perspective from someone who has not been in an abusive trap. And a perspective from someone who has not worked with abused survivors. Getting out of an abusive trap is extremely difficult. All the energy needs to go into removing oneself from the trap and getting support. Any talk like "well, both people in the relationship are at fault", "he is revealing some of your own shortcomings", "maybe it's best for her to have the resolve to stay in the relationship and make it work" all make it harder to break free of the abusive relationship. This is a view lacking empathy and direct experience. I have gone through this dynamic myself and I have volunteered in a counseling unit with abused women. It is easy to be on the outside sitting at a computer and go into conceptual mode and type out advice that sounds good. It is entirely different to have actually suffered the abuse and have actually spent time working with women in abused relationships. It sounds like you don't have that experience. In my experience, that leads to a very limited (yet well-intentioned) perspective.