Ralph Smart Teal Swan live talk on Pandemic

[DrewNows]

worth a listen folks 

[DivineSoda]

Awesome! I'll have to listen later, but thanks for sharing ?

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

Teal went HARD on this livestream, didn't sugar-coat shit. 

[Jacobsrw]

Not at all a balanced argument. Two public figures discussing the very same perspective without considering esoteric variables beyond their own paradigm. Some good points discussed but again, it just echoes the same theories being sprouted by those who so desperately require answers for something the finite mind fears not knowing. Or in short, “any answer is better than no answer”.

One thing I will note is Teal appears far more conscious in addressing free speech than either Rose or Icke.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[DivineSoda]

10 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Not at all a balanced argument. Two public figures discussing the very same perspective without considering esoteric variables beyond their own paradigm. Some good points discussed but again, it just echoes the same theories being sprouted by those who so desperately require answers for something the finite mind fears not knowing. Or in short, “any answer is better than no answer”.

One thing I will note is Teal appears far more conscious in addressing free speech than either Rose or Icke.

They were just speaking their truth. I thought it was insightful to see two conscious, non-dual people talk about this stuff. According to people on this very forum, that combination apparently doesn't exist. 

[Jacobsrw]

@DivineSoda and granted, they spoke about topics eloquently, however they did not in the slightest consider extraneous variables, that is not a non-dual dialogue to me. Non-dualism considers all possibilities because all possibilities are included in the very infinitude of non-duality. People may consume this and possibly just assume it to be.

Well, it exists but rarely in the form of public figures who are often discussed. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

@Jacobsrw What dressing do you usually put on top of your word-salads? 

[Jacobsrw]

@TrynaBeTurquoise olive and lemon, it’s very tasty and I’m happy to share ?

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[purerogue]

Although I can agree on controlling of people and probably there is some plan on all of this, but to say that lockdown and distancing is bad and taking away freedom is just stupid for me, smells of ignorance , you are basically saying my few month  "freedom" over safety of other people, because I have right to do what I want, well bad news for you, laws have always existed and there is freedom to take your freedom away, endangering other people because of your freedom calls for freedom of action from other people who do not want to be endangered. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by purerogue

[Parththakkar12]

3 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

@DivineSoda and granted, they spoke about topics eloquently, however they did in the slightest consider extraneous variables, that not a non-dual dialogue to me. Non-dualism considers all possibilities because all possibilities are included in the very infinitude of non-duality. People may consume this and possibly just assume it to be.

Well, it exists but rarely in the form of public figures who are often discussed. 

When you say 'they should consider all possibilities', you're assuming they don't know what they're talking about and are shooting darts in the air. That isn't the case at all. Same with London Real people.

That's the thing with this forum! Whenever you share something you know that is unpopular and outside the mainstream opinion, you will get told to 'admit you don't know' when actually you do know! You have your intuition showing you the power dynamics, which is where the fact that they are non-dual mystics comes in. You can't prove what your intuition tells you, like you can't prove non-duality. They are spiritual teachers who are relaying to us a very conscious perspective.

Will people take this as dogma? They aren't meant to, but if they do, that's their mistake. This won't stop them from sharing what they know.

[Jacobsrw]

@Parththakkar12 You are resting your whole argument on the assumption of another’s intuition being true. You cant validate how conscious one is nor can you validate the authenticity of one's intuition. This you will never know. This a complete approximated opinion predicated on your own subjective bias. Just the statement “they know what they are talking about” or “they are conscious” is a reflection of your own bias based on the belief you hold about them.

Thats a complete straw man. Radical ideas are shared on this forum all the time, far more radical than what was espoused here or mainstream society for that matter. It’s not how radical or indifferent an idea is that validates it. It’s the relevance it has to the essence of direct experience, beyond the ego-you experiencing it.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Parththakkar12]

8 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

@Parththakkar12 You are resting your whole argument on the assumption of another’s intuition being true. You cant validate how conscious one is nor can you validate the authenticity of one's intuition. This you will never know. This a complete approximated opinion predicated on your own bias. Just the statement “they know what they are talking about” or “they are conscious” is a reflection of your own bias based on the belief you hold about them.

How do you know I don't know! I do know that they're conscious. That is because I can intuitively see and verify a lot of what they're saying. This isn't blind faith on my part.

Your intuition is always true (that is if it really is your intuition and you aren't making it up). Intuition is basically universal God-perspective communicating with you and telling you what's what when there are 2 sides debating over something. It is the ultimate grounding you have in reality and it transcends all ideology and rationality. Intuition is your access to omniscience.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Jacobsrw]

@Parththakkar12 I don’t know but it’s possible that either do you, that’s the catch..

I partly agree with you assessment of intuition. However, that does not at all negate the possibility that your estimations could be operating from bias or ego opposed to intuition. Unless you are awake you cannot know for sure.

In all due respect, the way you are constructing this dialogue appears to me it is coming from a position of defensiveness rather than direct knowing. Knowing does not require defending, if one knows something to be true they would not fight with others to prove its validity. It would be radiated via their existence.

We fear not knowing because it threatens the foundations of ego. We attach to forms of relative knowing because it protects it.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Parththakkar12]

3 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

I don’t know that’s the catch, but it’s is possible that either do you.

I partly agree with you assessment of intuition. However, that does not at all negate the possibility that your estimations could be operating from bias or ego opposed to intuition. Unless you are awake you cannot know for sure.

I'm telling you what I know. I'm not telling you to believe me. You can use your intuition to decide whether you want to agree with me or not. However, I do know that in this context, what I'm saying is not an estimation, it is fully fully clear to me. It's not coming from bias or ego.

5 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

In all due respect, the way you are constructing this dialogue appears to me it is coming from a position of defensiveness rather than direct knowing. Knowing does not require defending, if one knows something to be true they would not fight with others to prove its validity.

Except that there is one loophole : What if your ego is an awakened ego? Enlightenment means that you realize that the ego is an illusion and that we are all one. Even after you are enlightened, you will have an ego, in fact you will have an ego that has access to intuition and non-dual states. You will still have multiple egos, some will be awakened egos which will be defined by knowledge of non-duality and intuitive understanding.

All egos have physical/mental/emotional needs, which is where the need to share what you know comes in. Why do you think they're doing what they're doing, going up against the establishment which is putting in control measures? It is a very human thing to want to help other human beings by telling them what they see from a more elevated conscious perspective.

This isn't a fight to prove the validity of what you're saying. That is a game the mainstream media and science plays. This is about telling people who are open-minded enough to consider what you're saying, so that it can help widen their field of view and so that it can help raise their consciousness.

[Jacobsrw]

@Parththakkar12 I’m not sure we are understanding each other here. How do you judge intuition between one person and another?

For example, if 10 people informed by their intuition agree with you and 10 do not who judges which one is trustable? No one can. Intuition is not judgable in that regard. And by that very merit you cannot announce your intuition over another’s because that would be biased. Therefore, your views are based on your own intuition and may not equate to an overarching truth. Intuition is not synonymous with Truth, it is just more accurate than logic. I feel this may be more tricky than you are assuming it to be.

Well supposedly ego is fundamentally illusory. So there would be no such thing as an awakened ego. If one is awakened they would operate through the lens of consciousness not an ego. Their decisions would be informed by pure awareness not the ego through which expresses it.

There are definitely more developed egos,  than others, but ego is a limited lens of consciousness, therefore it’s views are fundamentally untruthful. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Parththakkar12]

5 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

I’m not sure we are understanding each other here. How do you judge intuition between one person and another?

For example, if 10 people informed by their intuition agree with you and 10 do not who judges which one is trustable? No one can. Intuition is not judgable in that regard. And by that very merit you cannot announce your intuition over another’s. Therefore, your views are based on your intuition and may equate to an overarching truth.

It isn't possible for people informed by their intuition to disagree, because oneness! Reality is one. Now you can have different perspectives looking at the same reality, but they won't conflict. The universe informing everyone's intuition is the same and it is Infinite and One. If there is a perceived conflict, that is because someone is deluded.

9 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Intuition is not synonymous with Truth, it is just more accurate than logic. I feel this may be more tricky than you privileging it to be

In my experience, intuition is directly informed by the Truth and according to the Truth.

10 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Well supposedly ego is fundamentally illusory. So there would be no such thing as an awakened ego. If one is awakened they would operate through the lens of consciousness not an ego. Their decisions would be informed by pure awareness not the ego through which expresses it.

Yes, the lens would be one of consciousness. However, where do you think the information you download is stored? Who takes care of that information? That is the awakened ego. It is the awakened ego who trusts their intuition as a survival strategy. A lot of what humans do is about survival. Now because it is an awakened ego, even though it has survival needs, it won't see survival as everything. Having said that, even it needs survival strategies. The trick here would be to have conscious survival strategies. The awakened ego will be willing to experiment with conscious survival strategies because it understands that death is an illusion, so you aren't really risking anything if your survival strategies don't work. Having said that, it still wants to live and will participate in survival, because that is the only way to have a distinct perspective and raise your consciousness further.

17 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

There are definitely more developed egos,  than others, but ego is a limited lens of consciousness, therefore it’s views are fundamentally untruthful. 

This includes the awakened ego. It doesn't claim to know everything. No ego can know everything as it's just too much. However, your intuition is your access to omniscience, so the awakened ego knows how to access universal perspective. This is what spiritual teachers teach in fact. Their ego, which is one of a spiritual teacher, is good at teaching people how to access their intuitions and have an in-alignment life.

[Jacobsrw]

@Parththakkar12 I don’t agree that intuition is synonymous with Oneness. Intuition to me is a higher state of being from which the ego operates but not a universal law, that’s my bias however. 

I feel you may be missing the point. Who dictates who’s intuition is deluded and who’s is not? If both assert their alignment to truth both could be deluded as each other or one could be misinterpreting what the other is not. To me, it’s all bias. Consciousness is the only universal continuum. Nothing wrong with intuition perse, you just can’t establish an absolute statement of Truth from that level of function as it is completely skewed and relative to ones finite human self. What you feel to be intuition may not be what another feels it to be. Your judgment otherwise is your own opinion.

I don’t resonate with your formulation. There is no such thing as an “awakened ego”. There is ego and there is consciousness. An ego can operate at higher levels of consciousness but the ego does not awaken, it dissolves into consciousness upon awakening. I feel you have this back to front.

A spiritual teacher — if speaking truth — is not speaking from ego but from consciousness. Ego is just a lens through which is used to express consciousness, it is not an awakened form of consciousness. There is no such thing as an awakened form. A form cannot awaken because it is limited. Consciousness is not limited. Please explore this deeper and you may understand my point.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Parththakkar12]

25 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

I feel you may be missing the point. Who dictates who’s intuition is deluded and who’s is not? If both assert their alignment to truth both could be deluded as each other or one could be misinterpreting what the other is not. To me, it’s all bias. Consciousness is the only universal continuum. Nothing wrong with intuition perse, you just can’t establish an absolute statement of Truth from that level of function as it is completely skewed and relative to ones finite human self. What you feel to be intuition may not be what another feels it to be. Your judgment otherwise is your own opinion.

Oh yeah it isn't a statement of Absolute Truth. I thought we were assuming that no statement can be absolutely right or wrong...? I'll clear that up then : No statement can be absolutely right or wrong because true/false or right/wrong is relative. They aren't claiming that their statements are absolutely true. They are taking their stand as individuals on this. Now I value their perspective because it is a conscious perspective.

I don't think that intuition can be deluded. I feel that intuition is the universal mechanism that helps you get out of delusion.

25 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

I don’t resonate with your formulation. There is no such thing as an “awakened ego”. There is ego and there is consciousness. An ego can operate at higher levels of consciousness but the ego does not awaken, it dissolves into consciousness upon awakening. I feel you have this back to front.

Human beings don't have just one ego. We have multiple egos, in fact all egos out there are a part of ourselves. The universe is a fractal, so every perspective can access every other perspective, thanks to intuition/omniscience. It is a very strange-loopy thing where all perspectives are a part of my perspective. Now if one of those egos dies, i.e. goes through an enlightenment experience, the conscious mind still sees that and awakens some more.

Edit: You can identify with the universal perspective of Oneness. That would still be your ego, even though it includes everything! Truth would transcend even this ego. However, it can be useful to identify with Oneness because it is better than identifying with a separated ego-self and it causes less suffering.

25 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

A spiritual teacher — if speaking truth — is not speaking from ego but from consciousness. Ego is just a lens through which is used to express consciousness, it is not an awakened form of consciousness. There is no such thing as an awakened form. A form cannot awaken because it is limited. Consciousness is not limited. Please explore this deeper and you may understand my point.

They are not fully enlightened, i.e. not all of their egos are dead. Enlightenment is not a point, it is a journey of awakening. The ego going through this journey of awakening is the aware ego or the awakened ego. If they do become fully enlightened, they will merge with the formless and they will cease to have a form. This would require them to shed their human body. So awakening is a way of life for them. Their practice is to integrate non-duality with the dualistic world, thereby awakening deeper and deeper in mundane everyday life.

Edit: Have you seen Leo's video on the 10 Ox-herding pictures of Stages of enlightenment? What I'm talking about is the 4th or 5th stage, i.e. Catching the Ox/Taming the Ox. This is where, you get good at accessing pure awareness through meditation/yoga/psychedelics, and then you integrate it into yourself. You are then able to bring the light of consciousness into the most unconscious, dark ego spaces and create shifts in your own level of consciousness, and then subsequently in other people's level of consciousness.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Parththakkar12]

When I say intuition, I am including the insights that come to you when you contemplate something. Those insights are Universally, Intelligently designed to get you out of your mental delusions/boxes and to give you a broader understanding. They come to you in response to genuine curiosity relative to the question you are contemplating.

[Jacobsrw]

@Parththakkar12 Yes a statement can never be true because what is used to convey it is by design limited, that being, language. Consciousness is best spoken through silence, nothing more. I feel you are confusing compartments of consciousness for consciousness itself. Intuition is a compartment, insight is a compartment, intelligence is a compartment and so on. You cannot ascribe features to something such as consciousness because it supercedes them all, while equally containing them.

Again, you can have that perspective of Teal and Ralph, I personally do not resonate with them. However, it’s helpful to notice not everyone agrees with them and that such a disagreeance does not amount to delusion in doing so. This is completely a relative subjective matter.

I feel we are explaining the same thing but in slightly different ways. My bias is that awakening is not a complex hierarchical system indicative of stages, but rather it is a revelation that occurs upon the ego’s dissolution. I am open to what you are saying being possible, yet I feel there is too much fragmentary terms being used to explained the bare simplicity of consciousness itself.

Lets leave it there, we share similar views but most importantly we acknowledge the importance of consciousness. That is such an imperative to this work ?

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jacobsrw