Why Talent Is Overrated in Spirituality (Shinzen Young Case Study)

[Enlightenment]

@ardacigin Enlightenment doesn't change your sensitivity to pain neither it gives you good concentration (although since I'm in no agency mode I don't seem to go lower than stage 4/5 even if I don't meditate). I would define the first level of awakening as an expansion of the feeling of your own self beyond your body and it being more connected with the world.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Enlightenment

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, ardacigin said:

But Leo, I don't understand why you make such a statement. So many people get seriously enlightened using techniques and training methods. Even @Natasha who seems to have spiritual talent had done it using self enquiry. Without any practice, spiritual talent may or may not pan out. And relying on it and throwing in the towel is not a smart move.

You have to be very careful about biased selection.

People certainly do become enlightened using those methods, but less than 1%. How do you account for the other 99% for whom the methods do not work? Just saying they are lazy is not a good enough explanation.

The people who get enlightened using those techniuques are the ones who are already highly predisposed to it. You must be highly predisposed already just to do the practices seriously. Don't discount that.

Quote

How can training be 'thin vineer'? That is too much of an extreme statement when clearly there is a difference between meditators and non-meditators. Very rarely can someone get seriously enlightened (beyond stream entry) without any practice. Some amount of training is essential even in spiritually talented individuals.

Training is important, but also not sufficent.

You can train a donkey all you want but it will never reach the deepest levels of consciousness because of its fundamentally limited physiology.

Ditto for humans.

Quote

And again, just refer back to Shinzen's childhood. I don't see an inkling of potential talent there. And look where practice got him now. How can you view training as not essential?

Shinzen Young proves my point. I do not consider him to have reached the deepest levels of consciousness, and he's been at it for 40 years.

Sure, he has gotten a lot better. But he does not understand the deepest mechanics of God. And he probably never will without better neurotransmitters.

45 minutes ago, moon777light said:

Jesus was born with a spiritual talent from his very birth, Buddha was materialistic prince until he left the palace. But Buddha still got enlightened to crazy crazy levels of consciousness

The Buddha very clearly also had supernatural talent. Those talents just lay dormant until he left to be a monk.

Just the decision to give up his kingdom and become a full time monk was already an extraordinary act which could only have been made by a spiritually advanced person.

Stories say that the Buddha tried various yogic methods and aced them all within a few years. Clearly a sign of supernatural talent.

34 minutes ago, Jed Vassallo said:

This seems to me like your contradicting your own teachings. If "Brains Do Not Exist", why are you pushing that brain differences and neurotransmitters are essential to Spirituality? 

Be careful not to misunderstand my teachings.

Life comes in a spectrum of spiritual abilities, from bacteria to kangroos to humans to aliens to God itself.

Clearly a kangaroo is not going to fathom the depths of God no matter how much training. Why? Because of its physiological limits. It is too limited. Humans are better equipped. But still basically not good enough to fathom all of consciousness without augmentation. Humans lie all across the spectrum of consciousness. Some of us are totally retarded while others are Buddhas. This is certainly not explainable by lack of training, although training is often necessary to actualize our full potential. But what your full potential is, is highly constrained by physiology.

Also, I am speaking about a lot more here than enlightenment. Consciousness is not merely about enlightenment. There is a width as well as a depth to it. Very few people explored the full width or depth alone, let alone both at once. So just saying, "But Leo, person X is enlightened" doesn't mean much. That is not a nuanced enough understanding of the spiritual terrain.

[Natasha]

52 minutes ago, ardacigin said:

How is your relationship to pain and suffering? Really interested in your insights. How do you intuitively react when you do a long meditation sit where pain is really getting noticeable in your legs? 

Also, would you describe stream-entry as 'self-boundaries' disappearing forever? No longer identifying your sense of self as where your skin ends and the 'outer' world starts? 

 

No psychological suffering after the shift. I would observe raw sensations of pain without identifying with them. It's funny you mentioned it, because I have also always been highly tolerant to physical pain. I remember when I was in 7th grade I had a tooth extracted without any anesthetic (it was in my country of origin and they'd run out of anesthetics that day). Somehow even as a child I could dis-identify from the sensations of pain and just sit through the procedure and be ok.

The shift is in perception. Yes, you realize the sense of self is an illusion. Forms and sensations rise and disappear in raw vastness of reality, life at play. The 'self-boundaries' are conceptual, so is 'skin' and the 'outer'. 

[mandyjw]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Also, I am speaking about a lot more here than enlightenment. Consciousness is not merely about enlightenment. There is a width as well as a depth to it. Very few people explored the full width or depth alone, let alone both at once. So just saying, "But Leo, person X is enlightened" doesn't mean much. That is not a nuanced enough understanding of the spiritual terrain.

How can your perspective be so discouraging and yet so freeing at the same time? What is going on here? ?

[Shadowraix]

38 minutes ago, Jed Vassallo said:

This seems to me like your contradicting your own teachings. If "Brains Do Not Exist", why are you pushing that brain differences and neurotransmitters are essential to Spirituality? 

The model is useful inside the story. That video was to help you see past the model, to not be constrained by it. Doing so does not necessarily make it useless though. You must know a tool and how to use it before you can do so effectively.

@Natasha Funny that you mention the pain thing because even before this work like when I started high school I discovered by trying to perceive pain as just a sensation rather than something negative my pain tolerance skyrockets. But back then I also had moments of an existential crisis because I would ask myself "who am I" and focus on the I and couldn't locate it. Its quite scary when you don't understand whats going on. Funny how early parts of life can foreshadow where you are now when looking back.

 

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

How can your perspective be so discouraging and yet so freeing at the same time? What is going on here? ?

Is a bird outside in nature free or not?

Seems free, but it is also extremely limited.

It's important to understand the limits of a bird. It would be madness to try to ask the bird to solve calculus equations. Likewise it would be madness to try to ask a human to hatch an egg.

An important part of growing up is learning your limits. Paradoxically acknowledging one's limits can be liberating, as one then surrenders to them and stops trying to act in some loftier, idealized way.

Telling a child who's not suited for math to be good at math would traumatize the child and ruin his self-esteem because he will always feels inferior and not understand why. He will then blame himself for being defective or inadequate when in fact he's just suited to other things.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is a bird outside in nature free or not?

Seems free, but it is also extremely limited.

It's important to understand the limits of a bird. It would be madness to try to ask the bird to solve calculus equations. Likewise it would be madness to try to ask a human to hatch an egg.

What tells you you are a human?  What tells you you have limitations?  Why dwell on either label?  Isn't it better to just go out there and do what you want to do with your life?  Get after it!

Edited July 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Who told you you were a human?  What tells you you have limitations?

Try to hatch an egg. Post on YT when you succeed.

Like I said: madness.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Try to hatch an egg. Post on YT when you succeed.

Focus on your unlimitedness and put your limitations on the back burner.  Err on the side of no limitations.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Shadowraix]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Try to hatch an egg. Post on YT when you succeed.

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is a bird outside in nature free or not?

Seems free, but it is also extremely limited.

It's important to understand the limits of a bird. It would be madness to try to ask the bird to solve calculus equations. Likewise it would be madness to try to ask a human to hatch an egg.

Sorry for the double quote, but what about Siddhis? If such things are true then wouldn't many limits be self imposed? 

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

wouldn't many limits be self imposed?

The key is how you understand the word "self". That's an extremely loaded word.

If Self is understood in the widest possible sense as God, then all of life is self-imposed and self-created. But that does not mean you as a human body are not bound by constraints. You as God have imposed constraints on yourself which you do not know how to undo without physical death.

For example, God constrained itself to be that bird, but that bird has no idea how to break the constraints of bird-ness. That is the whole point of death, to escape one's self-imposed constraints. But you can't have it both ways. You can't be alive in a body yet totally unconstrained. The body is a serious constraint. Life itself is a constraint. All form is limited, whether you're a rock, a tree, a bird, a kangaroo, Albert Einstein, Jesus, a DMT machine elf, or whatever. Whatever you are is what constrains you to be less than infinite.

You are lost in the labyrinth of your own consciousness and your only escape is death.

[Joseph Maynor]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are lost in the labyrinth of your own consciousness and your only escape is death.

I don't mean to chime in here again, and I hope I'm not coming off as rude -- but failing to put the Mind in its place that causes the maze.  You don't need to die.  You need to realize the difference between the map (Mind) and the territory (Being).  What needs to die is you white-knuckle clinging to the Mind's talk as if that talk is the Truth.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[zeroISinfinity]

Bravo @Leo Gura you finally get that Consciousness is illusion making machine for Source/Singularity /You. 

That's awesome finally someone knows full Truth. ❤️?️

Don't go there @Nahm is right you Will lose everything. 

Edited July 28, 2019 by zeroISinfinity

[Shadowraix]

@Leo Gura hmm yes I see. I think the confusion stems that raising consciousness and getting access to Siddhis breaks things I *thought* were limits. Healing people, walking on water. How far can it go without releasing humanness? 

[zeroISinfinity]

@Leo Gura it's not escape it is last stop. Not worthy. 

[Joseph Maynor]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

8 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

Bravo @Leo Gura you finally get that Consciousness is illusion making machine for Source/Singularity /You. 

 

 

That's a limiting-belief.  Good for the Mind, not so good for God.  Anything you are "getting" is not God.  The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.  

Edited July 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

@Leo Gura hmm yes I see. I think the confusion stems that raising consciousness and getting access to Siddhis breaks things I *thought* were limits. Healing people, walking on water. How far can it go without releasing humanness? 

Sidhhis do not remove all limits. Many limits still exist even if you are Jesus.

It's very much like Neo in The Matrix. He learns to bend some of the rules but he is still constrained inside The Matrix. There are still many things he cannot do.

[mandyjw]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is a bird outside in nature free or not?

Seems free, but it is also extremely limited.

It's important to understand the limits of a bird. It would be madness to try to ask the bird to solve calculus equations. Likewise it would be madness to try to ask a human to hatch an egg.

An important part of growing up is learning your limits. Paradoxically acknowledging one's limits can be liberating, as one then surrenders to them and stops trying to act in some loftier, idealized way.

Telling a child who's not suited for math to be good at math would traumatize the child and ruin his self-esteem because he will always feels inferior and not understand why. He will then blame himself for being defective or inadequate when in fact he's just suited to other things.

I understood the need for limitation in form/creation itself but I never thought about it as applied to spirituality and enlightenment. We all puzzle about different masters and how they live their lives and point out flaws and sometimes intuitively feel that they are missing something. We want to understand where we are "going" but we can't. 

Where would the fun be if we knew how the story ended ahead of time? Shinzen Young or Peter Ralston or anyone else won't be able to spoil the ending. Maybe because there isn't one. 

 

[zeroISinfinity]

With all respect @Joseph Maynoryou have no idea what I am talking about.

@Leo Gura Don't do this what you are up to.

Compassion. 

Maybe I am some nobody from God knows where and my opinion is not important, but do not do this. Please do not. 

[Joseph Maynor]

@zeroISinfinity  With all due respect, I hope you're right.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor