There is too much emphasis on transcend and too little emphasis on include.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Brittany good perspective. You said what I was trying to explain to my self for years around this dilema or Tracendence vs Imanence

[Shane Hanlon]

14 hours ago, puporing said:

@Shane Hanlon Interesting.. I experience the opposite, there's not much emphasis on "transcending" from my view.. most people are kind of stuck at where their average peers are at and is very hard to get them out of it..

Your mind is literally afraid of "transcending", it cares much more about "fitting in".

For example I still have not found any spiritual circles that is LGBT friendly, it's all so heteronormative.

That is a great point! In typical western society there is essentially no emphasis on transcending. It is almost entirely absent. My experience has been spiritual circles (maybe in backlash towards societal norms) obsessing over transcendence.

I would also add here that accepting and loving LGBT people requires just as much if not more integration and inclusion as it does transcendence. I know many people who may never have had a peak experience in their lives who care for all people and in many cases care for those who are vulnerable more.

 

7 hours ago, Brittany said:

My question, to the "stop spiritual bypassing" community is, how can you even avoid the human experience?

Is that even possible?

Isn't the default state, for most people in the modern world, the human experience?

Isn't it the default state to get pulled into hedonism, watching TV, playing video games, socializing, getting lost in your suffering, getting lost in thoughts, getting lost in stories, getting lost in romantic fantasies, human life, family, work, doom scrolling on social media, etc.?

Isn't the entire society/world pushing us into the human experience, anyways?

Isn't that why monks needed to leave society, to begin with? Because staying in society meant that the human experience would punch you in the face all the time? Usually by your own friends and family pushing you into the maya/duality?

Firstly, I want to say that there are a lot of really good thoughts here. To anyone reading this thread, I'd recommend reading @Brittany full post. Secondly - just for the record - I don't personally identify as part of any subsection or group within spirituality.

You're right, you cannot bypass the human experience. That is one of the points embedded in what I am trying to communicate. I find spiritual circles tend to glamorize or idealize transcendence/enlightenment/"non-human" states of consciousness. This leads to people striving to reach other states of consciousness always thinking their current reality isn't enlightened enough. Meanwhile right in front of there face is a million opportunities for deepening your soul and Love. For me bringing Love to my darkest moments brought the most brightness and depth to my essence. Often the most profound moments of growth aren't in peak experience, but in every average moment or even in your darkest ones. But you have to embrace your humanness and suffering in order to grow. Avoiding them or tolerating them won't provide such depth. To lean into humanity is powerful and ultimately as a human being is what we are here to do.

Now to address your default state concerns. I'd like to note that my criticism is limited to serious non-dual spiritual circles. You're right to point out that many beautiful beings are on autopilot. To me they are neither transcending nor including. You are also right to point out that larger systems and structures are often at fault here. Perverse economic incentive, externalization of harm, coordination problems, naive exponential growth, and many more large misalignments lead to a depressing world to live in. I find it hard to blame those who are apathetic towards their life.

As for monks, if being a monk is integrated into your civilization like it was in tibet before china invaded, that sounds like a valid way to integrate and include while spending a lot of time moving toward transcendence. But in most modern contexts, becoming a monk means leaving humanity as a conglomerate behind. I don't know what I am talking about as I have never become a monk - I've only done retreats - but I'd imagine you would have less opportunities for integration and inclusion due to less complexity in your days. I don't think everyone should become a monk. But could be good for the right person in the right context I suppose.

I really love your point on many teachers for many topics. I think that is beautiful. No one teacher is God to do everything perfectly. Still, I think generally there is too much emphasis on trancsendence. I  think very few spiritually literate or otherwise people realize how deeply profound and beautiful inclusion and integration is.

 

2 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Embrace the King

I fundamentally agree with what is being said here. Service and giving is deeply related to human actualization as it is deeply related to Love. With that being said (and admittedly I am not familiar with this man nor his community) when I hear the king and queen framing, I can't help but cringe. Why can't we leave it at deepening our Love in service to others? Maybe it is just more viral and we are slaves to our economic incentives.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Shane Hanlon he have another episode on the archetipe of Monk. So in that context he is trying to say that there is a stage where we detach from socialization or from to much care for community in order to connect more with our core essence and there is time to go the other way and simply dive in the mundane world of life and enjoy it as much as a retreat. Like one friend told me another day: Built a life from where you dont even need to escape to a retreat. Or not being a retreat junkie at least.

[puporing]

5 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I would also add here that accepting and loving LGBT people requires just as much if not more integration and inclusion as it does transcendence. I know many people who may never have had a peak experience in their lives who care for all people and in many cases care for those who are vulnerable more.

Yeah in my experience it has been rare to come across people who are more mindful like that.. There really is discrimination out there and I have been going out less and less as a result of it.. 

But I'm saying in order to "get" or love someone who does not fit into heterosexual norms you have to be more mindful.. which requires some form of jailbreaking of your mind, there's not really a way around this.

Edited November 19 by puporing

[Brittany]

 

9 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Firstly, I want to say that there are a lot of really good thoughts here. To anyone reading this thread, I'd recommend reading @Brittany full post.

Secondly - just for the record - I don't personally identify as part of any subsection or group within spirituality.

I am glad that this resonated! 

You are right. Using a phrase like the  "stop spiritual bypassing community" is not helpful. And maybe I should stop framing it that way. Because this community does not actually exist. It's not a real identity/group. It's a pattern of thought that I was trying to capture.

9 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

You're right, you cannot bypass the human experience. That is one of the points embedded in what I am trying to communicate. I find spiritual circles tend to glamorize or idealize transcendence/enlightenment/"non-human" states of consciousness. This leads to people striving to reach other states of consciousness always thinking their current reality isn't enlightened enough. Meanwhile right in front of there face is a million opportunities for deepening your soul and Love. For me bringing Love to my darkest moments brought the most brightness and depth to my essence. Often the most profound moments of growth aren't in peak experience, but in every average moment or even in your darkest ones. But you have to embrace your humanness and suffering in order to grow. Avoiding them or tolerating them won't provide such depth. To lean into humanity is powerful and ultimately as a human being is what we are here to do.

I agree with this.

But I also think that, there needs to be a division between:

Group#1 - "People who are interested in spirituality/philosophy/enlightenment to heal trauma, suffering, emotional dysregulation, depression etc."

and

Group#2 - "People who are interested in spirituality/philosophy/enlightenment for the mere joy of exploring the human mind"

Trying to mesh both groups together is confusing, as they have different missions.

When I hear things like "To lean into humanity is powerful and ultimately as a human being is what we are here to do":

You are addressing Group#1 and not Group#2.

For Group#2, "Leaning into their humanity" is to play around with philosophy/transcendence/enlightenment/non-human states of consciousness. Because philosophy is their hobby. It's what they do for fun. It's their passion. And for some, it's their life purpose and part of their calling to play around with philosophy. And so, if philosophy is your passion and life calling, then doing philosophy is " embracing your humanness".

9 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I really love your point on many teachers for many topics. I think that is beautiful. No one teacher is God to do everything perfectly. Still, I think generally there is too much emphasis on transcendence. I  think very few spiritually literate or otherwise people realize how deeply profound and beautiful inclusion and integration is.

I agree.

Even creating a list of external books or an external referral list could help sometimes, if the teacher doesn't have the capacity themselves.

Edited November 19 by Brittany

[Da77en]

@Shane Hanlon

I made a couple responses about this some days ago but removed them to let the discussion progress a little more.

I don't recommend separating including/integration from the overall spiritual process because it's creating a misunderstanding that including is about including things into your experience.

Including things into your experience and having an overall loving attitude towards those things isn't referring to the nature of the aspect of consciousness we call "integration/including". When it comes to including things into your experience it’s important to have discernment. If someone is including something into their experience just for the sake of being inclusive that's a big misunderstanding of the nature of the term inclusion.

The nature of inclusion is that everything is already all-inclusive so it's about letting go of the negative fear based beliefs which perpetuate the illusion of separation. For example, the separate illusory self can only be perpetuated by negative fear based beliefs which create experiences of separation.

I agree that including more into your experience is important but it needs to be paired with clear discernment. Discernment is vital to the overall spiritual process and living well in general. When we talk about the nature of inclusion, the discernment is already covered because the nature of inclusion implies you need to let go of negativity/fear in order to experience it.

The kind of discernment I’m talking about is that you usually only want to include things in to your experience that are most relevant to your individual well-being, and the well-being of your reality as a whole. Becoming all-inclusive or fully integrated from the context you are speaking from would be a big misunderstanding.

Edited November 21 by Da77en

[Arthogaan]

I really like quote by I think Adyashanti, something along the lines of: it's not out and above - it's in and through.

[Javfly33]

On 17/11/2024 at 4:39 AM, Carl-Richard said:

If you focus on transcending without including, you might find that you only wanted to transcend because you didn't include. And you might find that actually transcending is not going your way either, and that you have to include at least something in order to transcend. So in this way, the personal development aspect of spirituality merges with the transpersonal aspect. It's actually the same project. It's usually only taken for granted, or in the case of the Puer Aeternus, neglected:

 

@Carl-Richard You can trascend by including, but then you have to include EVERYTHING.

And people that use the word 'including' in the self-help Spiritual perspective, they always mean including certain things, which usually are related again to their ego persona.

So they think they are being spiritual, in reality they are just getting lost in their ego bubble. So I´m just trying to clear things up for them. I also fell down that path. 

[Javfly33]

On 17/11/2024 at 3:56 AM, Shane Hanlon said:

 

Thank you for adding your perspective and sharing your time. <3

Spirituality is about reality and what is true. Transcendence and humanity are true at the same time. Relegating humanity to something lower or simply survival misses the point.

Spirituality is above humanity because the Spirit created the human. If you think they are at the same level you are missing the point. 

But they taught you 'is All One' so you can not make useful differences now that would speed up your process.

Quote

Ultimately it is a dialectic to be resolved. God and humanity are one. God and survival are one.

That´s cute language and nothing more and you know it.

Quote

 We are tasked with bringing as much of God into our human life as we can.

Who told you that? What is God? I have no experience of a God.

Quote

How can we heal our trauma? How can we communicate more lovingly in an argument? How can we make sure our sister feels seen when she is sharing something vulnerable? Practical things that require so much inclusion and integration.

 

Sure, and I´m telling you those things will only really come from transcending survival. 

Or you can be just another human that thinks is Awake but deep down is as selfish and clueless as everyone else's. Your choice. 

Edited November 21 by Javfly33

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

You can trascend by including, but then you have to include EVERYTHING.

No, only some, until you no longer see the point.

Ironically, all of spirituality up until the point of complete surrender is lots of including; spiritual ego. The ego thinks it wants what it thinks to be enlightenment and constructs an identity around that and pursues a set of techniques, practices, ideals; all happening within the relative, all constructing an ego.

So including is always happening and is unavoidable, and for many, it's really the only thing that that is happening while pursuing "spirituality"(because they get stuck). And the reason they get stuck is that they use it as a compensating mechanism for other things they are really wishing to include but which they are unaware or too bothered to pursue (because like the Puer Aeternus fears, it tends to involve some discomfort).

You just have to come to terms with it and be aware of everything you actually want to include, which generally includes petty "non-spiritual ego" stuff as well. And when you are really done with that and no longer see the point, then you actually transcend.

Edited November 21 by Carl-Richard

[Jacob Morres]

Yeah including is important. Leo does talk about spending years integrating before transcending though 

[Shane Hanlon]

I think a majority of the grievances and disconnections within this discussion arise from everyone having a different understanding of what integration/inclusion is. This makes sense since everyone is integrating/including different things in different ways. Why don't we try to create a comprehensive working definition together?

I'll start with something and encourage everyone to change or add what they feel is inaccurate or missing.

"Weaving together the different aspects of who you are—your emotions, insights, experiences, shadow, and past identities—so that they become a coherent and valued part of your overall being. This process often leads to a rich inner complexity, a deepening of being, and a profound sense of wholeness."

Keep in mind we are not trying to define or relate it to transcendence in this definition.

Edited Friday at 07:13 PM by Shane Hanlon

[Da77en]

@Shane Hanlon You’re not going to get a very holistic definition of including/integration if you are trying to separate it from transcending and other aspects of the spiritual process.

Like I said it’s fundamentally about letting go of separation. If you want to weave together all the different aspects of yourself, you need to let go of compartmentalization, suppression, avoidance, denial, and any other vibration of separation/fear.

If you want to go further than that you can add extracting growth from any aspect of yourself, current and past. Anything more starts getting into aligning with your true nature, transcending, and going into other aspects of the spiritual process.

I don’t understand the insistence of separating inclusion/integration from other aspects of the process.

Edited Saturday at 03:18 AM by Da77en

[Leo Gura]

On 11/20/2024 at 11:38 PM, Arthogaan said:

I really like quote by I think Adyashanti, something along the lines of: it's not out and above - it's in and through.

The path to God is right in and through the Devil's asshole.

Counter-intuitive moves

[Shane Hanlon]

8 minutes ago, Da77en said:

You’re not going to get a very holistic definition of including/integration if you are trying to separate it from transcending and other aspects of the spiritual process

It is like trying to define cold and hot. Yes, they are ultimately the same thing, but they can be seperated or defined differently to facilitate communication and make distinctions. If we want to truly be holistic and correct then we just don't speak or I guess in this case type.

[Da77en]

@Shane Hanlon I’m fine with any definition you have of integration/inclusion as long as you add discernment to it because inclusion into your experience without discernment is a recipe for disaster.

Edited Saturday at 03:30 AM by Da77en

[Shane Hanlon]

Just now, Da77en said:

@Shane Hanlon I’m fine with any definition you have of integration/inclusion as long as you add discernment to it because inclusion without discernment is a recipe for disaster.

Ok! let's dive into that!

What does discernment mean to you in this context?

[Da77en]

@Shane Hanlon You mentioned infinite inclusion without transcendence. I see that as an absolute disaster.

How can you have infinite inclusion without transcendence? You at least need discernment between what is relevant to include and what isn’t.

If you don’t have discernment with your inclusion from that context, then you have no direction.

There needs to be a relevancy to what you include into your experience or you’re just including for no reason, which is antithetical to having a healthy life.

Which is why I’m stressing that it’s important to not separate this from transcendence and the other aspects of spirituality.

Discernment in this context just means including what is relevant into your experience and not just boundlessly including which is antithetical to any kind of pursuit.

Edited Saturday at 04:47 AM by Da77en

[Shane Hanlon]

 

@Da77en

On 11/17/2024 at 9:39 AM, Shane Hanlon said:

On 11/17/2024 at 9:39 AM, Shane Hanlon said:

In the same way transcendence is seemingly infinite, so too is inclusion and integration. You can always include/integrate deeper and wider. Fear/negativity is often a symptom of serious schisms, but happiness, self esteem, and Love are symptoms of deep integration and inclusion. You can always deepen it.

It seems you are referencing this!

Hmmmmmm. let me think.
Because reality is so fractally, infinity exists at every scale and every perspective. Each moment of our life is infinite in every direction. Inner, outer. I could spend my whole life contemplating a single game of soccer or chess or league of legends. I could contemplate film or Love or the relationship I have with my sisters dog. This is relevant because just how "you can see the universe in a single grain of sand" so too can you see the universe in soccer, chess, league of legends, film, Love, or the relationship I have with my sisters dog. Infinite complexity is embedded in everything. This means that there is an infinite amount to include/integrate.

I also sense that you feel I am excluding discernment from the integration process. And I understand why. I haven't mentioned it. To me, discernment is built right into the integration/including process. How does one simultaneously integrate being seperate organisms with different internal qualia and yet entirely depend on each other with our lives with no clear distinction between me and my environment? Through discernment.

I don't hear that chemtrails are being used to manipulate the weather by our government and climate change is increasing the rate of natural disasters and the include them and integrate them with equal weight, truth, and importance. If that was the case then you'd be right to call it useless.

Is this starting to get at what you are communicating?

[Da77en]

@Shane Hanlon It still seems like you are making including into an action. By default everything is already all-inclusive. If you make inclusion into an action and start including boundlessly you lose all direction. That’s why I stress the importance of discernment in what you include into your experience.

You could try to include a tiger into your room but you would end up dying.

If someone actually followed through on the idea of boundlessly including everything into their experience they would end up dying very soon.

I think that’s all I’m going to say and will end on that. Just add discernment to your context of inclusion.

Edited Saturday at 04:14 AM by Da77en