Teal swan - what a woman needs from a man in a relationship

[intotheblack]

@Preety_India you can listen on Spotify I also don’t like watching the videos 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7hNQcULbbWLgAD20HtRFt5?si=ck1un7qjR9qJ1xwFwYN0pg 

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, AdamR95 said:

@Farnaby @Emerald I have that intution about her too. I have the feeling that she really isnt that smart or enlightened as she presented herself, It looks to me that she puts many unecessary beliefs and ballast in her videos.

It can’t be just vibe related. That’s more related to her personality and not to the content of what she says.

I am off-put by her vibe also.

But her content is so clear, deep, and accurate. It’s often that she shares something and it makes me realize realities that had been staring me in the face that I just never looked at. 

She may be self-aggrandizing and Shadowy. But she is accurate and holistic in her perspective.

[intotheblack]

I only started listening to her stuff recently, I think she explains things well.  I feel like most teachers can come accross as ‘know it all’s’ though, and can be annoying.  But I don’t mind teal so much.  Actually it’s nice to listen to a woman for a change. 

I listen to the wisdom and advice, try to not focus too much on whether I like or don’t like the person.  
 

 

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Hulia said:

I don´t know, maybe this general attitude that the others owe her something. To give more details I have to watch her video more than 3 minutes, but I don´t want to.

That’s not a reflection on what she’s saying or the accuracy of it.

That’s more about your feelings towards her personality and the traits your mind projects onto her because of her vibe.

So, for me to take your perspective seriously on Teal Swan’s videos, you’ll actually have to listen to her perspective and form an actual viewpoint on the content.

I’m more than happy to hear what you have to say. And no one’s perspective is perfect.

But calling her perspective pathetic when you haven’t actually heard her perspective and putting the facepalm emoji, has a lot more to do with you and how Teal Swan makes you feel than it does with the validity/ truth of her perspective.

But yet, you listen to Leo. His vibe is arrogant, narcissistic, and very prickly. But that doesn’t mean that his perspective isn’t rooted in truth.

So, if someone tried to invalidate Leo’s perspective because of his vibe, would you think that that person is making good points? I should hope not.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Emerald

[AdamR95]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It can’t be just vibe related. That’s more related to her personality and not to the content of what she says.

I am off-put by her vibe also.

But her content is so clear, deep, and accurate. It’s often that she shares something and it makes me realize realities that had been staring me in the face that I just never looked at. 

She may be self-aggrandizing and Shadowy. But she is accurate and holistic in her perspective.

Its possible she offers good value. I saw only few videos. From my perspective she wanst very direct and introduces too many ideas and beliefs wich i consider unecessary for these topics. Its maybe only because i am not resonating with her style though.

Edited March 12, 2021 by AdamR95

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, AdamR95 said:

Its possible she offers good value. I saw only few videos. From my perspective she wanst very direct and introduces to many ideas and beliefs wich i consider uncessary for these topics. Its maybe only because i am not resonating with her style though.

Teal Swans perspective is based in the path of integration as opposed to the path of transcendence.

So, perhaps you resonate more with the transcendental path. 

But I find there can be lots of Shadows with the transcendental path where a person undertakes that path to escape and spiritually bypass their humanity.., including emotions, psychology, traumas, and relationships.

The integrative path, however, integrates the paths of transcendence and embodiment... like a tree that stretches its roots deeper into the ground as it stretches its branches higher into the sky.

It could be just a resonance thing. But it may be helpful to suss out any avoidant tendencies that may be keeping you in resistance to integration.

[Danioover9000]

   Remember, critics and debating are not very productive.

[AdamR95]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, perhaps you resonate more with the transcendental path. 

But I find there can be lots of Shadows with the transcendental path where a person undertakes that path to escape and spiritually bypass their humanity.., including emotions, psychology, traumas, and relationships.

Yeah good observation, i have that tendency. 

[AdamR95]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

   Remember, critics and debating are not very productive.

It can be productive when you reflect on your own criticism you can learn a lot about yourself.

 

[Hulia]

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

59 minutes ago, Hulia said:

I don´t know, maybe this general attitude that the others owe her something. To give more details I have to watch her video more than 3 minutes, but I don´t want to.

That’s not a reflection on what she’s saying or the accuracy of it.

That’s more about your feelings towards her personality and the traits your mind projects onto her because of her vibe.

So, for me to take your perspective seriously on Teal Swan’s videos, you’ll actually have to listen to her perspective and form an actual viewpoint on the content.

I’m more than happy to hear what you have to say. And no one’s perspective is perfect.

But calling her perspective pathetic when you haven’t actually heard her perspective and putting the facepalm emoji, has a lot more to do with you and how Teal Swan makes you feel than it does with the validity/ truth of her perspective.

But yet, you listen to Leo. His vibe is arrogant, narcissistic, and very prickly. But that doesn’t mean that his perspective isn’t rooted in truth.

So, if someone tried to invalidate Leo’s perspective because of his vibe, would you think that that person is making good points? I should hope not.

Maybe my English is not very good, but there is a difference between "attitude" and "appearance". I spoke about attitude. Under attitude I mean perspective, point of view, frame of mind. 

I am compleeeeeeeeeeeeeetely allright with the attitude of Leo. That´s why after the first 3 minutes of his video I was beside myself to have found somebody like Leo.

Many people invalidate Leo´s perspective (not sure that it´s because of his vibe) but it doesn´t bother me. It´s normal, logical. I was rather surprised that he has almost 1 mln views - it´s a good news!   but that the same viewers watch this Swan lady is rather a bad news 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Hulia

[Hulia]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Physically, however, deconstruction is not always beneficial. But challenge is necessary to make a more functional, healthier, and stronger body. Obviously, if you want to become healthier, you go to the gym and challenge the limitations of your current body.

I don´t get it. How psycological deconstruction affects a body? Why should it?

[Samuel Garcia]

@Emerald At no point did I say people should nor say what someone should or should not do (and I'm not sure if others said at least from what I have read). In fact I'd recommend most people fulfil there social needs  if they are able to -- bond with your families; from deep, meaningful friendships; follow your heart and get into relationships with anyone you feel love for; climb the Hierarchy of Needs and do what you feel is appropriate for you.

But we just need to see the facts for what they are. Those are all selfish endeavours (what you meant by 'humanity') and for survival. And there is nothing wrong with survival just what is so. Without survival you and I would not be here. So from the individual's perspective, it is ideal.

Whether we get everything we want socially or nothing at all, either way we are not truly fulfilled. We know there is more life. Our intuition leads us to ''pursue'' spiritual enlightenment. Our higher self knows better than depending on other people (and worldly circumstances) for our happiness.

What you claim about enlightenment differs from what Ramana Maharshi has said. 

Now here is an important point: What I am saying about Enlightenment is more humanity not less! Would you rather help others or help one person based on your need for love? That is why I introduced the image of Mother Theresa helping others just as an example. It is a no brainer. We would rather help many people (whatever that maybe) rather commit to one person. The only reason we would be in a relationship would be to help ourselves. And of course if we were in a relationship with someone they would need to be satisfied as well, lol. 

If you feel you need relationships and other people, than do what you feel is best for you. I am not saying to not get into a relationship -- but it is selfish. If guys need to go pick up women, well that's where they are at. Spiritual bypassing could cause them to feel less satisfied, but they won't find the love they truly seek even in an intimate relationship. But many people have found completeness within and certainly let go of social needs. Ramana Maharshi clearly did this and found peace. It is not the norm for sure, but my higher self knows I must let go of needing a relationship -- like many other people. 

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

@Samuel Garcia @ZeroInfinity @Gesundheit

I find that a lot of people see humanity as something to get rid of.

Since we’re on a Teal Swan related thread anyway, perhaps this video will be helpful in regards to recognizing the issues with thinking that enlightenment “cures” someone of certain aspects of human nature. 

She just posted it as a throwback on her Facebook, and I thought it was pretty synchronistic given our conversation.

Mind you, I’ve not seen it yet. Will watch it now. But resistance to humanity can cause a lot of issues. 

Teal is stuck at stage Green/Pluralist. She lacks nuance/systems thinking, and bigger picture understanding/holism. She has not surrendered to God and is unaware of absolute truth/infinite intelligence/infinite love. These are just right off the bat.

Now, to the video:

Her main argument was basically about how some people tend to repress/suppress themselves, and that that's somehow related to spirituality. She equated spirituality with religion and demonized them both altogether. I don't know the specific sources she's implying, but I have never up until this day come across anything that promotes suppression except religion/stage Blue. I mean if I am to take her perspective at face value. If I am to go deeper, then she should watch Leo's video: Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense because her views are actually nothing but a libertarian's pipe dream. Anyway, back to the point, nobody within spirituality that I have come across demonizes humanness. Maybe some radicals do, but who really cares about them? They're less than a minority. The subtle distinction here is not to demonize humanness, but to recognize the delusions within it (whatever that is, and I'm assuming you've probably cringed from reading this, but I won't be discussing human delusions here). And then Awareness Alone Is Curative. But to be ignorant and accept human delusions as truth is foolish and a sign of lack of insight. That is what actually causes suffering, not spirituality like she's claiming. Spirituality is the removal of human delusions, and therefore the removal of suffering. To accept all human delusions as fine means to allow and encourage murder, theft, violence, wars, rape, racism, addictions, etc... She's very naive to even suggest such a perspective. There's a nuance that she's missing, and that is the lines we can draw on certain things. She doesn't want to limit any human expression, well, how do you respond to something like that other than with a slap on the face to remind her of the power of absolute freedom? I mean you gotta do something, because if you don't, someone else will, and they will do it rather ruthlessly, to the point of no-return. They won't be looking out for her best interests like you are. They will be looking for their own best interests even if that means stepping on her, to put it lightly. She's unaware of the dangers of the kind of freedom she's advocating. A little imagination is all you need to see that freedom = chaos, and that chaos = suffering. Humans are the most dangerous species. And only a hippie would be naive enough to think about allowing all human expressions.

I actually typed many other points/critiques but then I accidentally pressed back and they were gone, so I'm not gonna remake this any further. If anything comes up as I'm discussing I'll bring it forth, but for now I'm pissed and done.

P.S. This would have made a good thread in the enlightenment section.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Gesundheit]

59 minutes ago, Hulia said:

I don´t get it. How psycological deconstruction affects a body? Why should it?

I meant damage caused by aggression, like a gunshot. Clearly, I did not mean post-modernism.

[zeroISinfinity]

@Gesundheit Well you don't have  a brain. 

But. ?

[Hulia]

14 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I meant damage caused by aggression, like a gunshot. Clearly, I did not mean post-modernism.

I don´t get it again. So... you haven´t deconstructed your body? I hope.. I interpreted post-modernism corectly. 

[Etherial Cat]

20 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I meant damage caused by aggression, like a gunshot. Clearly, I did not mean post-modernism

 

 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Teal is stuck at stage Green/Pluralist. She lacks nuance/systems thinking, and bigger picture understanding/holism. She has not surrendered to God and is unaware of absolute truth/infinite intelligence/infinite love. These are just right off the bat.

Support this claim. You can't just claim something as though it is truth without saying why you believe that.

So, why do you believe Teal Swan is stuck at Green? Why do you believe that she lacks nuance and systems thinking? Why do you believe that she has no surrendered to God and is unaware of absolute truth?

If you have a critique of her perspective, explain the critique. It takes no effort at to just do empty grandstanding and criticism. 

Now, to the video:

Her main argument was basically about how some people tend to repress/suppress themselves, and that that's somehow related to spirituality. She equated spirituality with religion and demonized them both altogether.

She's a spiritual teacher, so she is not demonizing spirituality and religion. She's sharing some common pitfalls that people who are on the spiritual path often end up in. And this is something that can be noticed in many places.

I don't know the specific sources she's implying, but I have never up until this day come across anything that promotes suppression except religion/stage Blue.

Yes, humanity-denying religion/spirituality is a feature of stage Blue. But most religions and spiritual paths are still stage Blue. But even in spiritual spaces where many Stage Orange and Green people congregate, have this same humanity-denying impulse. 

Most Spirituality that promotes transcendence of the human perspective is all over the place in modern spiritual circles as well as many spiritual paths. In modern spiritual circles, lots of people consciously or unconciously hold the idea that our humanity is something that is lesser than our divine nature and that our humanity is something to be transcended. 

Also, many spiritual paths tend to be very focused towards the spirituality/divinity/transcendence aspect of the path while ignoring the grounded/embodied/human aspect of the path. 

I mean if I am to take her perspective at face value. If I am to go deeper, then she should watch Leo's video: Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense because her views are actually nothing but a libertarian's pipe dream.

How is Teal Swan's perspective like the Libertarian perspective? Support your claim.

Anyway, back to the point, nobody within spirituality that I have come across demonizes humanness. Maybe some radicals do, but who really cares about them?

It's the majority of people on the spiritual path that do this. Just take a look back at this thread, and you'll see evidence of it. A lot of people get into spirituality to avoid things. Many people use spirituality as an escape mechanism. 

They're less than a minority. The subtle distinction here is not to demonize humanness, but to recognize the delusions within it (whatever that is, and I'm assuming you've probably cringed from reading this, but I won't be discussing human delusions here).

There are delusions within humanity... and one of them is to believe that (with enough enlightenment) we can cure ourselves of the human condition. 

The whole point I'm trying to get across to you is that you're deluding yourself if you believe that enlightenment will cure you of your human psychology.

And then Awareness Alone Is Curative. But to be ignorant and accept human delusions as truth is foolish and a sign of lack of insight.

You can't spot human delusions unless you are aware that you have them. If a person goes denying their humanity in hopes of transcending it, the waters will get muddier relative to their human delusions... not clearer. 

That is what actually causes suffering, not spirituality like she's claiming. Spirituality is the removal of human delusions, and therefore the removal of suffering.

But spirituality is often co-opted by the human ego and used as a coping mechanism. Spirituality can lead to the removal of human delusions. But it is common that it gets people even more wrapped up in delusion. 

To accept all human delusions as fine means to allow and encourage murder, theft, violence, wars, rape, racism, addictions, etc... She's very naive to even suggest such a perspective.

She's not saying to become entrenched in and greenlight human delusions. She's saying to become conscious of and accept your human nature without repressing it and denying it. Stop strawmanning her perspective. 

It's easy to win an argument against a strawman when you distort and misrepresent someone's claim. 

There's a nuance that she's missing, and that is the lines we can draw on certain things. She doesn't want to limit any human expression, well, how do you respond to something like that other than with a slap on the face to remind her of the power of absolute freedom?

This is doing the very thing that's going to get you steeped in unconsciousness to the human perspective. 

You are saying that there is an inherent duality between the absolute and the human perspective and that you have to rid yourself of the human perspective to connect with absolute freedom.

But reality is non-dual, which means the human perspective is a facet of the absolute. The finite is part and parcel to the infinite. Therefore, to push away your humanity is to create a schism and disalign yourself from the non-dual perspective. 

And furthermore, this will lead to many human ails the more you deny your humanity. 

I mean you gotta do something, because if you don't, someone else will, and they will do it rather ruthlessly, to the point of no-return. They won't be looking out for her best interests like you are. They will be looking for their own best interests even if that means stepping on her, to put it lightly.

I'm not looking out for Teal Swan's best interests, I'm looking out for people's best interests. Spiritual bypassing is not a virtue. It will cause many problems for a lot of people. 

She's unaware of the dangers of the kind of freedom she's advocating. A little imagination is all you need to see that freedom = chaos, and that chaos = suffering. Humans are the most dangerous species. And only a hippie would be naive enough to think about allowing all human expressions.

Again, stop the strawman arguments. Go ahead and quote her where she's talking about advocating for human beings to do absolutely anything they want. Did you even watch the video before you started making this argument?

I actually typed many other points/critiques but then I accidentally pressed back and they were gone, so I'm not gonna remake this any further. If anything comes up as I'm discussing I'll bring it forth, but for now I'm pissed and done.

P.S. This would have made a good thread in the enlightenment section.

 

[soos_mite_ah]

2 hours ago, Samuel Garcia said:

Now here is an important point: What I am saying about Enlightenment is more humanity not less! Would you rather help others or help one person based on your need for love? That is why I introduced the image of Mother Theresa helping others just as an example. It is a no brainer. We would rather help many people (whatever that maybe) rather commit to one person. The only reason we would be in a relationship would be to help ourselves. And of course if we were in a relationship with someone they would need to be satisfied as well, lol. 

If you feel you need relationships and other people, than do what you feel is best for you. I am not saying to not get into a relationship -- but it is selfish. If guys need to go pick up women, well that's where they are at. Spiritual bypassing could cause them to feel less satisfied, but they won't find the love they truly seek even in an intimate relationship. But many people have found completeness within and certainly let go of social needs. Ramana Maharshi clearly did this and found peace. It is not the norm for sure, but my higher self knows I must let go of needing a relationship -- like many other people. 

Yes enlightenment and transcendence is more humanity and love. But before you go to transcendence, you need to go through integration. That's why stage Yellow is before stage Turquoise. Integration of all of the stages in order to ensure that you have worked through your shadows is essential in providing the foundation for transcendence. If you try to transcend your needs before meeting them, you risk creating a shadow for that need.  Yes, transcendence and stage turquoise is higher than integration and stage yellow but integration is just as important and isn't lesser to transcendence.  

Yes you can have physical preferences and yes you can have emotional needs. None of those make you superficial or needy. It just matters on the way you go about meeting those needs.

As far as emotional needs goes, there are some people who get dependent on their partner and expect them to be  therapist and provider. That's not a healthy way of going about those needs for either party. But wanting a supportive partner who you feel like you can be vulnerable with because you feel emotionally safe can create an intimate connection that benefits both parties. 

Same goes for the need for sex and physical preference. An unhealthy way of going about it is reducing the other person's worth down to physical appearance as if that is the main thing that matters. Women have suffered a lot from this by things like objectification , the way we are expected to adhere to beauty standards, and the messed up notion that women lose their value after a certain age because they are no longer attractive. A healthy way to go about meeting needs for sex and physical preferences is acknowledging them but not wrapping all of your standards up with appearances and instead also taking the other persons personality and agenda into consideration.

I feel that women are generally better at this because we can acknowledge our preferences when it comes to what we like about the male form. Not to be vulgar but we do talk about the attractiveness of the male body and sex in general similar to how guys talk about liking asses and tits.  Many of us are also ok with casual sex and that's ok. But the thing is that we don't base a man's worth solely on those things because we don't objectify men they way they objectify us. You can see this in a societal and institutional scale as well.

Edited March 12, 2021 by soos_mite_ah

[Danioover9000]

@AdamR95

3 hours ago, AdamR95 said:

It can be productive when you reflect on your own criticism you can learn a lot about yourself.

 

   That's true, if you self reflect in isolation. However, when you debate and criticize another person, it always further solidifies the ideas each side chooses to defend, because the point of criticism and debating isn't to arrive at the ultimate truth, it's to protect what each side thinks is their truth, and their good, through persuasion and knocking down the other side's truth as falsehood, while claiming your own partial truth as The Good Truth, see?

   I'll go as far as saying that self criticising and debating yourself is also a waste of time as well, as that tends to fragment yourself more.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Danioover9000