Re: Nonduality Wars Not Allowed Here. Why Not?

[Aware]

The non-duality war

 

I personally think its very healthy if there is a part on the forum where people actually truly can debate discuss it, but not mengled with the articles of certain paths. Because it can get them to think critically. (it requires however another set up in the forum).

I do strongly disagree that all paths are as good as others. Of course, someone who is further sees that the 8 folded path, that purifies the desires is best among paths, because someone is thrown in himself. But what makes something like this, or such a claim toxic? Because there is certainly a point being made by Leo. Keep in mind the 8 folded path, we will come back on that in a min.

So what is then so toxic?

I will show you guys an example of what is toxic, what is a perfect example of trying to "debunk" something in an ill way (not to forget, debunking is healthy, I promote it).

Here is an example shown that is actually thrown, and already explained in my comment what is so wrong about it.

 

Quote

 

However, the main issue with your misinformation has little to do with flat Earth or hoax Moon landings, and more to do with your ulterior motives. Your insistent egoistic preaching/ramblings may appear innocent enough on the surface, but there are a lot of young gullible minds lurking here, easily confused and ready to be led astray by your pseudo-wisdom supported by your cut & paste posts from The Dhammapada site.

Spiritual egotism is just the wisdom of a fool.

 

 

Dear xxxx,

You miss again the point, xxxx.

So I will again explain it to you. The dhammapada, is well studied by me, and its examples are good to share. I live up to those examples, secluded from unwholesome deeds, sense indulgence, concentrated on Awareness and I am  awakened to my true duty in accordance with my True Self. 

However, you seem to miss the point again. Your aim should not be me, but the subject that is presented. If you find it misinformation, support this with decent evidence. Refer to what is pseudo-wisdom in what I shared here as teachings.
If someone lives up to it, and shares examples that enlighten the way, then surely this is wise to do. For those who follow it up, and look into it, surely, this is wise to do as well.

However, if you do not come up with decent arguments, surely any intelligent being reading this, will surely understand that what you say is hollow, your own misunderstanding that is situated in either your own passions or ignorance. And should read the Dhammapada yourself and put it into action.

I do not see a single article coming from you, that actually challenges what I shared here as teachings. There for I conclude because of not taking a stand to actually debunk it with decent arguments, your post as being filled with ramblings and pseudo-wisdom, egotism and can be there for classified as foolish, per swaying people to agree on things that lack evidence and has therefor nothing to do with wisdom, being intelligent and being situated in the fruit of wholesomeness.

If you disagree, and are not willing to put any evidence in what is wrong with what I am teaching here, and why it should be otherwise, and how it should be otherwise, then surely if you can't keep your mouth shut, sit still, putting your attention on yourself and being concentrated on Awareness, and instead just keep mumbling around here in this forum referring to me how I am situated in spiritual egotism, you clearly miss your aim, and are yourself trying to astray by your pseudo-wisdom. For you can also just not read what I write, put me on ignore, and leave it at rest.

But you do not do this, you come to me, again and again. How can that be of a good intent? 

Surely you didn't miss that.

................................................................................................... (So for all haters of Leo (or anyone else that is hated) that do not have come yet with decent arguments and are not willing to present them, but are just attacking, this message above is for you as well).

 

The same counts for all that have something to say about Leo... If you don't have decent arguments, then leave it be. You must be ready to give arguments when asked for them.

However I do point out towards Leo, see, they throw at me as well, and I have seen very very nasty things being said towards Leo, without a decent argument, or not willing to later point things out more, clearly with decent arguments, (e.g youtube) and I have seen nasty things being thrown at me.

So whats toxic? That which makes it toxic, is that people do not come with decent arguments, and when asked, still don't. I would definitely would like to see a place where people can criticize peoples work, but with decent arguments (I stand widely open to be debunked very hard, but one must be coming with arguments, that are verifiable, and if I ever write something, people can just say to me: Please let us debate this, I wanna put this to the test with decent arguments, and I shall never say, I am not interested to support my claims with decent arguments with a clear mark of refraining from sophism). Preventing this healthy critical thinking in a forum, surely will lead people to think, oh Leo is going to discern who is non dual and who is not, and this is however imposing a non-dual by not non-dual which is toxic if not supported by good, solid arguments. (I am willing to support this further if Leo wants this, I stand wide open to make myself useful here) I don't believe Leo meant that as his intention however.

Remember the claim about the 8 folded path? I dare to speak out that the 8 folded path is the best among paths. And I am willing to put decent arguments on that. Nothing toxic about that.

However, I do am afraid that many, just can't put up decent arguments that are refrained from sophism, to actually truly demonstrate why its wrong even if they would wish. Some examples from other works, is just not enough to debunk something, although a valid point can be made. I am not supporting psychedelics, but I am betting that Leo would not say to me: Motus, you are crazy, you didn't gave me solid reasons why not, you are toxic. I always come with arguments, and if not, one can always ask for them, and I give them. And I find this healthy, because in this way I can warn for his reputation, (its what a good wise friend would do)!

Create an article about what truly is non-dual according to you, and stand open for an argument back, letting readers decide for themselves. Thats key. And I would suggest that the administrator can use this information for improvement into all directions. (useful information can come out).

Saying: Those non-dual, will never debunk something or debate it and correct a wrong view. This is not true. An enlightened being, or someone with a great understanding or someone rooted in Dharma, is only here to debunk with powerful sublime arguments. Debunking is for example what you do as well Leo, its what you should do. Its refraining from such duty that is dual, being attached. I wonder how many people got debunked by Leo in a positive manner, and I well support many of the points he made. (And I maybe should give those more credit here).

I would rather say, if someone makes a probable toxic claim, they should be able to start an article on a forum, and challenge this. IF they do not respond to that, not even when asked in private to join it, or do join, but keep being toxic, not using arguments, just sophism to persway people and make war, now that is a reason to ban. 
I don't see a reason to ban, because he said; take the path I took, your path is wrong Leo. Or, Leo is not the right teacher. Motus is a bad teacher, his teachings are rubbish.
(taking this personally is of course based on a wrong view, there for asking for arguments, which if one is not willing to put, and keeps going on with sophism and per swaying, then you can state: Wrong intent, false speech, wrong act, wrong view, wrong place of attention and concentration) (= Reason to ban?)

Why no banning straight away, what do I think? Because, such a claim can be supported by arguments and should at some point, and the reader should ask for them to kindly explain why, if the writer did come up with decent arguments that can be checked to be valid, by his own core with a clear mark of refraining from sophism, he should be reasonable. Well now, the one answering should put decent arguments, and refraining from sophism. Otherwise, yes, if one just claims widely, without arguments, just throwing and throwing, is indeed making toxic claims due to not willing to support this claim with decent arguments. 

Deciding what is a good argument, valid argument etc, yes, one must be more educated, and that is another problem I come across. Therefor if someone is trying to debunk me, I will be more critical at pointing out rather why its sophism, and why it should be avoided. And I will do this as well for Leo, or anyone, if I see sophism, for the sake of education.

I would ask nicely, that those who get a decent argument thrown at them, learn from it. Get along, harmonize, learn. 
I would ask nicely, that those who do not have a decent argument or are not be willing to put one when asked, just shut your mouth, and sit with it. Go watch some video's of Leo, or read some of the teachings I posted here.

 

I really would like to see a reply from Leo, how he looks at the points I make here, as he is the administrator. And really would like to hear your thoughts about this article. (Remember, again, don't attack me, for theres no me, or a Leo, just learn to focus on my points that I make and come with arguments that are in line with the subject presented).

(I posted it in the same forum, for practical reasons)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Motus

[Leo Gura]

@Motus Debate does not serve an educational or consciousness-raising purpose. It serves an ideological, egoic purpose. Debate is about winning, not about actually understanding the other perspective. If you observe yourself very carefully as you're debating, you will feel this. Your very desire to have a debate is already the problem. A debate has nothing to do with discovering truth. The truth is never uncovered in a debate. All debate does is drive people deeper into their webs of belief, creating distraction from doing the inner work.

There is no need to convince anyone of your version of nonduality. Whatever your favorite method of nonduality is, just pursue it. Preaching it would be an ego-trap.

What I do is a form of teaching. I teach because that is my purpose. I generally do not debate. Sometimes I "rant", but even that is tongue-in-cheek and mostly done for entertainment purposes. If I do a rant, I usually understand the other perspective. I am not in ideological opposition to it. If your purpose is also to teach -- great! -- then do that without debating anyone. You are not teaching through debate, you're just making people ideological.

Debate also quickly devolves into ad hominem attacks, name-calling, trolling, and simply creates a virulent toxic atmosphere. The level of consciousness of people who like to debate is usually so low that they aren't able to engage in true open dialogue. They don't care about understanding or fairness, they only care how to defend their position at any cost. Of course, that's exactly how ego functions.

What better way for ego to maintain itself than to engage in a debate about how other people's spiritual paths are wrong?

Notice that when you go to a spiritual retreat, ashram, or Zen monastery, the atmosphere is never one of: "Hey guys, let's debate these teachings and poke holes in everything. Wouldn't it be beneficial to debunk some of this stuff?" If you did that, you would get kicked out. Not because the teacher is afraid that you will somehow dethrone him or undermine the truth of his teaching, but because you're behaving unconsciously and infecting others with that unconsciousness, defeating the entire purpose of that gathering.

If you make your approach one of quietly seeking to understand every perspective, you will come out 100x stronger than if you make your approach one of loudly undermining all perspectives you disagree with.

To be clear: engaging in thoughtful, constructive, open dialogue is NOT debate. And it is allowed here.

[Aware]

@Leo Gura I think I better should have used the word discussion.

 

Debate is very loaded in this language as I look it up. It is in our country somewhat different, can also be philosophically proper discussion to present arguments so that the listener or reader can benefit from it.

 

Quote

To be clear: engaging in thoughtful, constructive, open dialogue is NOT debate. And it is allowed here.

Yes, we call that here a discussion, and formally we call this here a debate, where it can also mean, that it can be pointed especially for the listener or reader. This seems, when I look it up in English somewhat different. Much more loaded with the term politics.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Motus

[Leo Gura]

If you are being constructive, non-hostile, intellectually charitable, and seeking to REALLY understand the diversity of perspectives out there -- rather than pushing your perspective -- then we have no problem. That is totally allowed.

Even though the difference between the word "debate" and "dialogue" may seem trivial, in actuality they are totally different things. If you ever hear a true dialogue between two minds trying to work constructively, it's totally different than a debate.

For an example of that, see the dialogues between David Bohm and Krishnamurti. That is true dialogue. They are not working against each other. Whereas the kind of stuff you see all over the internet or TV, that's mindless egoic debating.

[Aware]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you are being constructive, non-hostile, intellectually charitable, and seeking to REALLY understand the diversity of perspectives out there -- rather than pushing your perspective -- then we have no problem. That is totally allowed.

No you are absolutely right, I am reading about "Debate" its in your language VERY loaded with politics, which is in our country totally not the case. We have "debates" as a proper formal discussion form, that is a structured philosophical approach with the listener or reader in mind that benefits from the given statement that is debated. (is used in universities in for example philosophy, does god exist?)

For politics, we have political debate which its purpose can be for the listener but is to promote ultimately and why others are lacking and why with a clear intention (not to instruct or educate), its a clear distinction while in your language it seems automatically loaded with politics. So you are absolutely right. I lacked on the language meaning on this one. And mean thus, proper discussion.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Motus