Carl-Richard

My interactions with you were initiated by multiple member reports about breaking the guidelines and I happened to agree. If you disagree with my assessment, then realize that you're not the first one to be confronted by a mod about such matters.

You have 17 warning points from 5 different mods, 2 of them were from me.

A list of definitions doesn't do anything if you don't have the experiential reference points to understand them. To give the impression that you can speak clearly about these things has an element of double bind. Here is the problem behind all confusion in spirituality: it's about an experience, and what you get from teachers in the form of words is never that. It doesn't matter if it's God-realization or non-duality.

If Connor Murphy is a spiritual teacher then I was a spiritual teacher when I was 19 ?

Ok.

@Scholar Good conversation. Dan joking about Destiny and Ana made my day

INFP Use it to discover yourself, not limit yourself.

In a larger context, it isn't. It always leads to "you don't understand, you have to experience it." To give the impression that you can speak clearly about these things has an element of double bind.

The God-realization talk has the same dynamic as the Neo-Advaita talk: it's all just pointers that don't make sense without an experiential reference point. In some sense, talking in riddles is a more consistent way of communicating this fact.

Do you think it's a joke?

The main criticism can be found at 8:46:

I'm talking about Leo.

Do you ever feel that you have trouble being understood yourself?

On that topic, even so-called good evidence is limited:

Well yeah, that hearkens back to earlier critiques. Some of it, not all of it. If you're going through the hassle to bring up studies in the first place, you better bring out the good stuff.

Also, if you're used to 10-20 minutes, it doesn't hurt to take it step by step: 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 etc.

Tell me your thoughts about how others exist and tell me how others exist beyond thought.

One sit a day is enough unless you absolutely want to do more

Continuous. The 45 minute mark is where the fun happens.

That is essentially my perception of it.

This is getting blown way out of proportion, and it's partially my fault. I shouldn't have prolonged the semantic quibble about rights. Again, all I did was balance out the equation that Axiom presented in the spirit of "do with that what you want": he presented the individual rights aspect (medical ethics, autonomy), and I presented the collective security aspect (preventative medicine, restrictions etc.; or in other words, the very reason that the entire world has decided to respond to the pandemic in the first place). I wasn't making any strong case for or against mandates. My stance is in fact that the entire equation is important, and I perhaps wrongly assumed that people would understand that. If you want to call that a vacuous, flip-flopping nothingburger of a contribution to the discussion, then be my guest. I don't get the part where I displayed lack of empathy for these people. I'm the one who said "we all have an anti-vaxxer inside of us" for God's sake

It was a big smoke screen. Yeah. Some of that is his own fault though as he apparently brought up weak studies and somebody pointed that out and he acknowledged that.

Up it to 45 minutes to 1 hour, no off days. This is crucial.

Everything disappears.

@Scholar Mr. Girl: People think you're doing therapy. Dr. K: I disagree.