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 4 hours ago 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 49 minutes ago by Brittany