Why do people assume one to be egotistical & pretentious if they've had various spiritual experienc

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Seriously, though, you each are referring to experiences that you've had, or continue to have, and while these experiences may be very real to you, the truth is that experience is not an accurate measure of what is real.

Why is not accurate measure of what is real? Our whole world is built on knowledge, philosophies, ideas, and theories obtained through direct experience. Whether it's in the lab, theoretical, an idea, a concept, all in the realm of subjective consciousness.

I can't address your entire reply, since they have limits on the length of posts. This one statement does deserve a response, since it lies at the very heart of my point.

Our human experience is built upon these things you list, but not our whole world. Reality itself is not constructed of concepts and philosophies. Reality is not a subjective construct. It is rigidly objective at its base, as each system emerges from each contributive level of systems,and while it allows for the emergence of the human mind (as the system that it also is), it merely hosts the human mind as it breaks all the rules and imagines such subjective things. Reality doesn't allow subjectivity to exist as structural. Nothing can be built upon that which isn't objective and rigidly finite.

Reality is an end result, an emergent confluence of contributing factors that form a cohesive whole that can be so complex that the term "chaos" was invented to describe it. It truth, chaos - actually Chaos Theory - doesn't allow for subjectivity, but acknowledges that there are emergent systems that are spawned by such complexity, that it is literally impossible (due to what's known as dissipating systems) to accurately factor out the array of contributing systems to the extent that any predictions can be made concerning the inherent behavioral properties of these emergent systems. You could claim that such a system is capable of subjectivity, but in truth, all you can really say is that you're ignorant of the objective nature of such a system.

The human experience - the emergent system that is spawned from an array of contributive systems that include the brain, the social structure, the environmental factors that affect the body and brain, and more complexities than can be properly detailed here - is 100% subjective, and can never be objective in any sense of what that term suggests. The brain-generated mind is the only existent anything that is capable of subjectivity, with that miraculous achievement limited to only within the confines of its own realm of perception. That subjectivity can impact but cannot be imposed upon the rest of physical reality. Of course, it can affect the subjective perceptions of another brain-generated mind, but not in the sense of imposing its exact nature within the perception realm of that mind. That secondary mind must translate that expressed subjectivity for itself, and craft its own inimitable version of what the initial mind has shared with it. This being the case, no two minds can experience the full truth even if that truth has been bestowed upon both equally. The translation process "dirties up" the objectivity of an actual truth, transforming it into a flawed subjective rendition of what it was originally.

Basically, you can't experience anything that is objective (true), because your human mind is simply not capable of processing objectivity. That said, your mind is capable of invention and creativity. That's extremely rare within the whole of reality, and well worth the trade-off.

reply to post by NorEaster

Basically, you can't experience anything that is objective (true), because your human mind is simply not capable of processing objectivity. That said, your mind is capable of invention and creativity. That's extremely rare within the whole of reality, and well worth the trade-off.

I'll start with your conclusion, and perhaps work backwards.
This next part is part theory, part speculation, but also part direct experience so bear with me.

What I have come to know through logic, reason, intuition, and direct experience is the following.

A human being consists of a physical body, a mind, and also an awareness/consciousness that is nonlocal and does not depend on a body or mind for it's existence. I've experienced these things directly and have met quite a few others who also have experienced this. Whole sections of Buddhist, Nondual, Greek, Christian, and Hindu thought and philosophies have large swaths of their knowledge bases directly concerning this and how to see for yourself and test if this is true.

My experience of Oneness, where there is no me, except all things, all perspectives, all at once everywhere, could perhaps be the subjective experience of Objectivity itself and this objectivity is God, the Tao, the Supreme State, and the various names attributed to this.

The way it happens in me, is my awareness, circumvents the mind/ego, drops down through the neck, an enters somewhere in the heart .....where like a drop of water falling into the ocean of existence, it is no longer anywhere to be found. This which I just wrote is spoken of and corroborated in hundreds of philosophies and religious texts the world over.

Perhaps the heart is the organ, or antenna, of Objectivity. i.e. ears for sound, nose for smell, body for touch, mind for intellect/reason/thought, awareness being aware of each of these, and the heart as the source of awareness and organ to experience the objective state.

There are many more factors such as grace, additional hidden and transcendent faculties, and so on.

Reality itself is not constructed of concepts and philosophies. Reality is not a subjective construct.

The whole purpose of many paths is to let go of subjectivity and see what arises in it's place.

Reality is rigidly objective at its base, as each system emerges from each contributive level of systems,and while it allows for the emergence of the human mind (as the system that it also is), it merely hosts the human mind as it breaks all the rules and imagines such subjective things. Reality doesn't allow subjectivity to exist as structural. Nothing can be built upon that which isn't objective and rigidly finite.

This also corresponds to buddhist and nondual thought.

You could claim that such a system is capable of subjectivity, but in truth, all you can really say is that you're ignorant of the objective nature of such a system.

This also corresponds to buddhist and nondual thought and I've experienced that subjectivity is an illusion of the mind in a sense.

This being the case, no two minds can experience the full truth even if that truth has been bestowed upon both equally. The translation process "dirties up" the objectivity of an actual truth, transforming it into a flawed subjective rendition of what it was originally.

Beg to differ in this case if we reapply the heart as an organ for experiencing an Objective state of existence. In that case, it could be that the initial experience I have referred to (which in my case is prior to any thought or any thinker of thoughts) is prior to the subjective translator or translation.

I think by your logic you would agree that all experience of reality is so fast that it is prior to what anyone thinks about it or translates it subjectively to. If you do agree with this, there are various blueprints, manuals, philosophies and so forth which show how to permanently bypass the subjective translator and live directly from the state of spontaneity and chaos you refer to.

Coming to that state however, I think you'd find that the chaos & spontaneity is vividly alive, aware, & integrated into us in various ways, particularly the heart.

I think you got much of it figured out for the most part and it agrees in many respects to some very heavy and heady philosophies which in turn consider themselves to be the end all be all absolute philosophy in terms of the construct of reality. However they are all pretty much in agreement that direct experience & penetrating the inner realms is vital and I think that this is where you lack balance as certainly you would agree with me that the idea, concept, thought, and philosophy of swimming is never the same as actually experiencing the swim itself. And that's were we end up, in the invitation to see if these things are true for yourself

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And I can attack your premises and claims and show them what they really amount to—leaps and bounds of faith.

Attack my premises and claims, you have no clue what my claims are so what are you going to attack? Your ignorance is astounding beyond all logic!

You are in the process of trying to prove the OP wrong. Intolerance here doesn't help your plight.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And I can attack your premises and claims and show them what they really amount to—leaps and bounds of faith.

Attack my premises and claims, you have no clue what my claims are so what are you going to attack? Your ignorance is astounding beyond all logic!

If you are astounded by the pseudo-skeptic ignorance here, you should try the JREF forums...

Psuedo skeptic? You're the one who is skeptical of all evidence to the contrary of your claims. And no matter what names you think you can throw about, it's always wrong. Eventually I hope you tire of this vicious circle.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Hey I'm working on reply to the one you posted on page 3. bear with me.

Everyone else, let's keep ego and arguing out of this and be civil, logic, reason, love and no need to point fingers. Sure there are is lots of ignorance going on, but I have found in LesMisanthrope a very civil debate and also him having agreed that unless one knows somebody well and personally, then one can't really call another egotistical and pretentious.

Stay tuned

Frankly -- the notion of "personal spiritual awakening" is fundamentally flawed. Experiencer's run off in to the woods alone, and return with wild tales and descriptions of flora and fauna none of the rest of us can see, hear, smell or taste.

The only spiritual awakening that counts is internal. The only judgement day that matters is personal. Everything else is just prophets and guru's and the bones of an old, dead age.

Safe travels, whatever road you choose.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

The only commonality I see throughout the doctrines of Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, The 10 commandments, etc. is the dominion over and contempt of nature, and a mastery of the body. That I find as the only valuable insight I've acquired throughout my time as a mystic

i mean that's a good start, but there is soooo much more to it you may be missing out on. For example Buddha's enlightenment happened as the result of 7 months straight of circumventing the mind/ego and staying completely aware of the breath. I'm sure this would reveal all sorts of things within that an average commoner is not privy to, and even I myself haven't done 7 months straight. However I have spent considerable time within, and have found that there is definitely alot going on to look into that's in the subconscious ...under neath the surface so to speak.

All the Jesus stuff was Grace that mystically smacked me in the face when I least expected it and never thought anything like that was possible.

Sure I used to believe in supersensory aims, but I became honest with myself and questioned the vain desires and wants I was putting before truth. I wanted to be special, powerful, able to see different realms, move things with the mind etc, but these desires never made me so, no matter what method I practiced or what God I prayed to.

Perhaps it's the intention and approach to it. I never really believed alot of the supersensory stuff to be true and deduced that even if it was, then it was set aside for a cave dwelling meditator spending decades on lunging the depths. My intention was to see unbiasedly & genuinely what all this stuff is all about, and as a side effect some supersensory attriibutes/faculties did manifest, albeit if we were using a volume dial from 0 to 10, then they were/are in the 0.5 to 1 category of what else is possible.

Spirituality became, and still is to me, vanity, merely a desire to appear spiritual to others. Hence the reason I find mystics sometimes pretentious, because I, like them, were after something—to be like God in the minds of not themselves, but everyone else.

By definition however, that is a stereotype, unless you went off to meet 1,000 mystics and got to know their motivations and then came back with a generalization. In my case, as a kid I was questioning reality and since then never gave a crap of what anyone thought about me. Even in high school which all the clicks, crews, groups, I stood on my own and joined no one and this in itself became a popular ideal and inevitably a group formed based on not giving a crap.

That still applies to today. For I genuinely initially wanted to see for myself what's up with all the paths and philosophies out there. I realized that prior to, I was living in a skepticism box that prevented living unbiasedly. What I would later come to find is that most paths and philosophies work on destroying all bias and subjectivity which then in turn reveals the absolute.

On another note, eventually what emerged was a longing in the heart for experiencing the Absolute Truth no matter what it was. I will say that my glimpses of it is far beyond anything that I ever thought it was or could be. The longing in the hear clashed with the ego/mind which had it's own ideals based on cultural and peer programming provided by the world. So I assure you my posts here are from the heart, wanting to share that these things are real and for people to see for themselves. In that respect there is no room for me to say or argue im right and your wrong, but to see for yourself.

They need to convince others, seduce others, and thereby justify themselves by talking about themselves and how they interpret their experiences.

In one respect, from I can say I don't care who realizes this stuff and who doesn't, because we will all eventually get there anyway. It's the next evolutionary step. In another respect, having these experiences and expanded consciousness, love, peace, etc makes life so simple, malleable, transcendent, filled with awe, nothing taken for granted, ahhh I can go on and on to just say that I would wish for everyone to operate from this mode of existence because there is no room for greed, hatred, war, jealousy, and eventually the entire ego here. But I repsect that most will continue without this. It's only logical.

One man's astral projection is another man's good dream; one man's out of body experience is another man's hallucination; one man's prayer is another man's conversation with himself. Both are the same but conceived differently.

I believe these paths & philosophies have various check & balances in places to prevent the above. I.e. only 2 brain surgeons will understand certain experiences in the op room. A new surgeon needs time to understand these intricacies

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And I can attack your premises and claims and show them what they really amount to—leaps and bounds of faith.

Attack my premises and claims, you have no clue what my claims are so what are you going to attack? Your ignorance is astounding beyond all logic!

You are in the process of trying to prove the OP wrong. Intolerance here doesn't help your plight.

Here let's do it this way! What are my "premises" and "claims"?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And I can attack your premises and claims and show them what they really amount to—leaps and bounds of faith.

Attack my premises and claims, you have no clue what my claims are so what are you going to attack? Your ignorance is astounding beyond all logic!

You are in the process of trying to prove the OP wrong. Intolerance here doesn't help your plight.

Here let's do it this way! What are my "premises" and "claims"?

So far the only premise you've put forward is that I'm ignorant. This is false nor could you attempt to prove it.

Haha wow, his argument fell apart so he started running in circles like Homer Simpson!

reply to post by dominicus


Yes I am generalizing, which is impossible not to do in these cases. I have yet to speak to all mystics and I am sure there are some who are the exact opposite of what I say. You, for example, have a level head and consider what I have to say. This hardly ever happens and you remain an anomaly in my eyes, and I have no choice but to offer you the same respect.

I honestly believe that you believe in what you experienced. That isn't in question here. And I'm sincerely happy to know that you discovered this stuff by yourself and you haven't been seduced into it as I was. I therefor think you are not a mystik and instead a free-spirit and perhaps even a skeptic in the classical sense.

But I'm glad you brought up that small caveat to your skepticism, that eventually what emerged was a longing in the heart for experiencing the Absolute Truth (capitalized to appear divine) no matter what it was. This is honesty. To acknowledge that a desire brought you to your beliefs is the first step, at least in my mind, to becoming completely free of not only the beliefs others, but one's own. I whole heartedly believe that one should experiment spiritually, but one should never settle on any one stop along their path for too long. Why stop at Christianity? Why stop at mysticism? Why stop at Atheism or Nihilism? Life is an adventure, not a game.

That being said, I now know you're on that path and I dare not get in the way of it. This is a rarity among people who call themselves mystics. Also, no intent to attain the supersensory? That's unheard of!

Of course we're going to differ in opinion about pretty much anything, but we're not so different.

reply to post by 1nf1del


No need to speak to me in the third person. I am right here.

And the OP wonders why mystics are egotistical and pretentious. You are answering his question.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

No need to speak to me in the third person. I am right here.

And the OP wonders why mystics are egotistical and pretentious. You are answering his question.

Maybe you shouldn't ASSume I was speaking to you, you also shouldn't ASSume I'm a "mystic" as I've never claimed to be one, you ASSume I have an ego, I'm still waiting for you to prove my claims to be "leaps and bounds of faith", why did you respond to me in the manner that you did if you're just going to be an ass?

Originally posted by dominicus
Here's something I'm wondering about, and it definitely has to do with Philosophical thought.

Throughout the years on ATS, I've posted on debates and various threads, that through various Spiritual and philosophical paths, I've come to experience all sorts of Mystical experiences, illumination, enlightenments, and various glimpses of states where there is no me anymore.

While this does not make me any different or any better than anyone else, it does set me in a category of "Those who have experienced certain things" as opposed to "those who have not experienced these same things."

Somebody always comes along and makes statements such as:

"So you've become a pretentious, & Holier than thou." or "So you think your better than everyone else."

There are always all these assumptions that project egotism and pretentiousness, and it's just not the case. But no matter how my stance is defended, people just carry along with assumptions & projections.

If this is the case, then Buddha, Jesus, all Mystics and Philosophers that have ever claimed to have experienced rare mystical experiences are also egotistical & pretentious, by the logic of these assumption and projections.

The one defense I have in my pocket (although the assumptions and projections will continue unclouded) is that, particularly in Buddhism (amongst many other spiritual paths and philosophies), there is mention of the trap of creating a Holier than thou spiritual based pretentious ego based on those experiences. It is mentioned that it is a trap for beginners and mentioned how to get past this trap and continue forward.

Also, Buddha said not to take his word for it, but to test his philosophies for yourself experiential where going within and your very own consciousness is the inner laboratory with which to test these premises.

But instead of testing any of these things, there is quite a few folks who continue to assume & project without any inner insight to whether these are true.

My whole point and motivation for bringing up these experiences is because they are AWESOME, and things that both Jesus & Buddha taught, I've tested myself and saw that they are true and out of Love and compassion, I wish others to be able to experience these things as they are a key to acquiring peace & love in this world where everything that is bad is caused by the Ego ....and I've seen places beyond the ego and have seen that the Ego is not I.

But of course assumptions & projections, without testing themselves the premises, will continue

Well, OP, simply put, those people are butthurt because they feel left out. It never occurs to them that, with proper training and practice, they could have similar experiences. Some of us are more attuned than others. Doesn't make us special, just different. I rarely speak of my experiences except under a screenname, because most people don't know how to deal with it. It's outside their experience, and they feel threatened by it. It's just a recipe for conflict. I've come to realize that, I'm not here to enlighten anyone.

If a like mind comes into my sphere of influence, information can be shared. awesome. but, I'm not dropping my "empath/reiki practitioner" self on those who don't get it. It blows up in my face every time I've tried it. As a straight male, it turns off women because it seems unmanly. as a black male, it ABSOLUTELY turns off my fellow blacks who, generally speaking, are even more right-wing christain that any stereotypical white evangelical southern christian you could find(which, is really hysterical if you think about it. Most black folks have republican values but vote for dems 90% of the time. talk about confused). So, I generally keep it to myself out of sheer self-preservation.

TLR version: the naysayers are mad because they feel left out of the party.

reply to post by 1nf1del


This is a waste of time but I must admit, I love to argue.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
@Dominicus I too stood in those shoes two months ago, I was shown the "light" and my own ignorance, before October 28th I was a hardcore Atheist, if people think my "ego" is too big and don't want to listen to the message, let them wallow in their own ignorance! My ego was put in check, there is no ego leading me, only light!

There's no ego leading you eh? Only light? Then why respond to my posts as if they somehow hurt your feelings? Why call someone names? Why display such an ego if you don't follow it? Why do the exact opposite of what you claim?

What message are you offering? Light? I mean it's the most vague and abstract message, one that escapes all understanding. Is light what you're trying to sell?

Sure call me an ass, call me Homer Simpson, call me assumptive, try to provoke me through personal attacks, I embrace and welcome the ignorance of others. Nonetheless, you are the one assuming, and you are the one acting like an ass. Contradictions sir. Contradictions.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

This is a waste of time but I must admit, I love to argue.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
@Dominicus I too stood in those shoes two months ago, I was shown the "light" and my own ignorance, before October 28th I was a hardcore Atheist, if people think my "ego" is too big and don't want to listen to the message, let them wallow in their own ignorance! My ego was put in check, there is no ego leading me, only light!

There's no ego leading you eh? Only light? Then why respond to my posts as if they somehow hurt your feelings? Why call someone names? Why display such an ego if you don't follow it? Why do the exact opposite of what you claim?

What message are you offering? Light? I mean it's the most vague and abstract message, one that escapes all understanding. Is light what you're trying to sell?

Sure call me an ass, call me Homer Simpson, call me assumptive, try to provoke me through personal attacks, I embrace and welcome the ignorance of others. Nonetheless, you are the one assuming, and you are the one acting like an ass. Contradictions sir. Contradictions.

You responded to me first on page 3 with this.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


Case in point:

To you, my interpretation would be entirely ignorant, and accordingly I should perhaps wallow in it. So thus I am ignorant and someone who wallows in my own ignorance as if it was dung. But to me, the reverse is the case. And I can attack your premises and claims and show them what they really amount to—leaps and bounds of faith.

I have NO message for you, like I already said.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Some people will always be stuck inside the box no matter how many times you try to show them the light, these people are not yet ready to ascend, nothing you do will wake these people, your message will always fall on deaf ears, instead concentrate on the positive energy and the people who are willing to receive the message we have been given, do not waste your time on fruitless labor, I understand how frustrating it can be and the need to try to wake these people, I have come to accept that some people are not ready to wake up!

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

This is a waste of time but I must admit, I love to argue.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
@Dominicus I too stood in those shoes two months ago, I was shown the "light" and my own ignorance, before October 28th I was a hardcore Atheist, if people think my "ego" is too big and don't want to listen to the message, let them wallow in their own ignorance! My ego was put in check, there is no ego leading me, only light!

There's no ego leading you eh? Only light? Then why respond to my posts as if they somehow hurt your feelings? Why call someone names? Why display such an ego if you don't follow it? Why do the exact opposite of what you claim?

What message are you offering? Light? I mean it's the most vague and abstract message, one that escapes all understanding. Is light what you're trying to sell?

Sure call me an ass, call me Homer Simpson, call me assumptive, try to provoke me through personal attacks, I embrace and welcome the ignorance of others. Nonetheless, you are the one assuming, and you are the one acting like an ass. Contradictions sir. Contradictions.

I guess it's just easier to ignore?

Originally posted by dominicus
Here's something I'm wondering about, and it definitely has to do with Philosophical thought.

Throughout the years on ATS, I've posted on debates and various threads, that through various Spiritual and philosophical paths, I've come to experience all sorts of Mystical experiences, illumination, enlightenments, and various glimpses of states where there is no me anymore.

While this does not make me any different or any better than anyone else, it does set me in a category of "Those who have experienced certain things" as opposed to "those who have not experienced these same things."

Somebody always comes along and makes statements such as:

"So you've become a pretentious, & Holier than thou." or "So you think your better than everyone else."

There are always all these assumptions that project egotism and pretentiousness, and it's just not the case. But no matter how my stance is defended, people just carry along with assumptions & projections.

If this is the case, then Buddha, Jesus, all Mystics and Philosophers that have ever claimed to have experienced rare mystical experiences are also egotistical & pretentious, by the logic of these assumption and projections.

The one defense I have in my pocket (although the assumptions and projections will continue unclouded) is that, particularly in Buddhism (amongst many other spiritual paths and philosophies), there is mention of the trap of creating a Holier than thou spiritual based pretentious ego based on those experiences. It is mentioned that it is a trap for beginners and mentioned how to get past this trap and continue forward.

Also, Buddha said not to take his word for it, but to test his philosophies for yourself experiential where going within and your very own consciousness is the inner laboratory with which to test these premises.

But instead of testing any of these things, there is quite a few folks who continue to assume & project without any inner insight to whether these are true.

My whole point and motivation for bringing up these experiences is because they are AWESOME, and things that both Jesus & Buddha taught, I've tested myself and saw that they are true and out of Love and compassion, I wish others to be able to experience these things as they are a key to acquiring peace & love in this world where everything that is bad is caused by the Ego ....and I've seen places beyond the ego and have seen that the Ego is not I.

But of course assumptions & projections, without testing themselves the premises, will continue

As long as it remains 'an assumption', they are basing thier opinion/assumption on thier own fantasy of what they assume...

If color-blindness 'red' were the norm, those that could see red, would be imagining things...of course...

A99