GENIUS FORUMS

In how we progress spiritually, I'm wondering if left to our own methods, is it likely, or even possible to reach a pure intellectual understanding of Ultimate Reality? In my case I was able to reach some significant Truths without the help of any spiritual guide or philosophical teacher, and I felt like I was the only truly reasonable, logical, and sane person on the entire planet. On the one hand it was great to be the recipient of such fortune, but on the other hand I was at times very confused about what direction I should take my life in. This is where the writings and compilations of Kevin Solway and David Quinn came in. It put me over the top, and I was able to fill in the once unseen gaps in my understanding. So I'm wondering if anyone here who has a solid intellectual understanding of Reality, and has been enlightened to some extent, (I know who you are) was able to reach their current state without the help of spiritual teachers that directly pointed them to The Way. In the case of people who did encounter a spiritual teacher or guide of some sort that put them over the top, do you think your understanding would have ever reached the level it is now at? Or do you think your spiritual progression would have been too slow, allowing worldly matters to weigh you down to the point of no return? In my case I think it would have been the latter, and even though I read a few spiritual and philosophical texts in my time, they didn't have nearly the effect on me the way David and Kevin's compilations did.

Also, I know Dan Rowden and David Quinn were both very much influenced by Kevin Solway according to what I've read. So a question for both of you is; do you see Kevin as the spiritual guide who put you over the top, and if so do you think you would have reached the level you are currently at without his guidance? And a question for Kevin, is your clarity of understanding in part due to a spiritual teacher who put you over the top? And if so, who was he?

Nick,

So I'm wondering if anyone here who has a solid intellectual understanding of Reality, and has been enlightened to some extent, (I know who you are) was able to reach their current state without the help of spiritual teachers that directly pointed them to The Way.

I would say that one’s influences are very important for any significant degree of spiritual progress, as very little can be done in isolation. For instance: I didn’t make much progress on my own until I was in relationship to other philosophers and the teachings of other sages. However, I was lucky to be born with a somewhat empirical mindset, combined with a fairly inquisitive introverted personality. I contribute some of these traits to the fact that I’m left handed, and the rest to genetics. However, I probably would have self-destructed in a fury of delusion if I weren’t in relationship with the right people, and born in a stable country. So environmental conditions are vital even if the one’s genetic seed has enlightenment potential. However, some seeds have absolutely no potential so environment is irrelevant.

So in my case, the most significant spiritual progress has only been made through the direct criticisms of others. Although, I admit that ‘language conditioning’ from various sources played a role as well. For instance: for myself, the work of Jiddu Krishnamurti and UG Krishnamurti initially helped to direct my criticisms towards the nature of the self, but the direct dialogues with fellow philosophers is what caused significant changes in my psychology at the deepest level.

And looking back, my character has always responded better to direct confrontational criticisms, rather than gentle pokes. One’s prior conditioning can always resurface by gentle pokes, but a harsh criticism shakes the very foundation the ego stands on. Another’s criticisms reflect a mirror of insight back on oneself, and while this reflection maybe hidden from the partially deluded; it can be easily spotted by a wiser observer. So in my case, the real-life criticisms from other philosophers have caused much deeper change than reading wisdom of the infinite or poison for the heart or the next spiritual text ever could.

Spiritual progress is just a form of combined emotional progression AND regression as it relates to rational thinking.

Though I've used the term "spiritual" on occasions, I'd prefer to drop the word spiritual completely. It confuses the issue and makes it appear as if there is something more than just rational thinking involved. Using the word is ego wanking.

That is one thing site has made me aware of (via the nihilism that rational thinking causes) - any form of spiritual superiority is just game playing.

I have a reasonable amount of respect for the rational thinking of the site founders, but no repsect for the manner in which David and Kevin spiritualise this thinking.

Ryan,

So would you say your spiritual progression has been fairly steady through out the years? Or that you never really experienced a monumental leap forward in your quest for Truth that you can look back on and say, "that was the point where I really started to make some real head-way?"

Jamesh wrote:Spiritual progress is just a form of combined emotional progression AND regression as it relates to rational thinking.

Though I've used the term "spiritual" on occasions, I'd prefer to drop the word spiritual completely. It confuses the issue and makes it appear as if there is something more than just rational thinking involved. Using the word is ego wanking.

That is one thing site has made me aware of (via the nihilism that rational thinking causes) - any form of spiritual superiority is just game playing.

I have a reasonable amount of respect for the rational thinking of the site founders, but no repsect for the manner in which David and Kevin spiritualise this thinking.

I think the stigma these words present to some people is more of an internal matter. These words can easily upset people with weak and insecure egos because they are affraid of what they might mean, essentially the word is defining them, and how they feel. On the other hand a wise person with knows that words are his slave and chooses to define the word as a means to an end, not the other way around.

do you see Kevin as the spiritual guide who put you over the top

"Drive me over the edge" is more like it.

Nick,

So would you say your spiritual progression has been fairly steady through out the years? Or that you never really experienced a monumental leap forward in your quest for Truth that you can look back on and say, "that was the point where I really started to make some real head-way?"

I would say that for the first twenty years of my life I had a fairly cartoony picture of reality, as my imagination was constantly distorting what is. Although, I did have some decent insights in high school. For instance: I realized that my high school girlfriend was stupid, and I broke it off with her without feeling much guilt. And I also felt a strong disdain towards my father’s repetitive opinions early on. However, most of the poetry I wrote back then involved my ego achieving heroism and fame through some sort of scientific or artistic achievement. My outlook was highly romantic, sentimental and ego driven…

I didn’t start to make any significant headway until I met Cory, and we began studying the teachings of various sages or fake gurus, and then turning their teachings back against our own experience.

Before then, my empirical skills were almost entirely turned outward in things like geology and astronomy, as I had very little imagination into the nature of the self. So the teachings of other sages and being in relationship to another philosopher helped to point my criticisms deep into psychological truths, instead of hovering in safe conventional scientific theories.

And then my most recent headway occurred during my first year or so on GF, as Quinn’s and Solway’s stark observations and criticisms helped to finally extinguish some of the remaining emotionalism, egoism, misunderstandings, and holes in reasoning that still existed.

So if I had to create a timeline of my life, the first twenty years+ would be a period of relative unconscious followed by a period of progressive growth into a state of more consciousness with two large periods of interconnected novelty.

In how we progress spiritually, I'm wondering if left to our own methods, is it likely, or even possible to reach a pure intellectual understanding of Ultimate Reality?

An intellectual understanding alone is not possible, since Reality is ultimately feeling. Thought itself is highly limited at our experiential level because it is purposefully divorced from feeling. What needs to be understood is that you are not your thoughts. You are your attention, and your thoughts translate the object of your attention into concepts within belief systems. Every thought we have happens within belief systems. This is why it is so important to be accepting and appreciating, for objectivity. You don't hold so tightly to certain beliefs, especially beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, and your attention widens at the periphery. The intellectual understandings will not be only intellectual as you recognize where the understandings are coming from.

I think the stigma these words present to some people is more of an internal matter. These words can easily upset people with weak and insecure egos because they are afraid of what they might mean, essentially the word is defining them, and how they feel. On the other hand a wise person with knows that words are his slave and chooses to define the word as a means to an end, not the other way around.

Just commenting on the people with weak and insecure egos comment.

I've always had an insecure ego, and that has made me "weak as piss" in relation to self improvement, so I have never been much of an achiever. I tend to be a pessimist and I tend to concentrate on the negative rather than the positive.

Most people prefer to be positive and they don’t examine the negative to any depth. Our lives are ones of "role acting", we learn that we can be good at certain things that give us rewards. We concentrate our efforts on learnt behaviour and it ends up as part of our more or less permanent personality. Our memories regard being negative in certain scenarios as more positive than not, and thus our memories will cause habitual actions, which in turn create more experience memories, and strengthens the degree of overall positiveness or negativeness of the person over time.

Attention from others drives us even if the feedback is negative, as because our behaviour fits into a duality of positive/negative herd interactions we find a synergy-by-opposition with certain groups in the herd. The reward of communicating negative ideas is mostly obtained when such ideas turn out to be true, though when a generally positive person accepts a negative idea, then this also can be rewarding.

We role play, because different approaches are required for different groups. Sometimes one assumes a positive role, sometimes a negative one. Across the human herd the overall degree of negativity/positiveness would form some sort of bell curve (shifted by instincts to the right).

Positive people have a tendency to ignore negative truths. They don’t suit their ego. Negative people have a tendency to be overwhelmed by negative feelings, the weight of an irrational world can be very great, and may become unable to see that often the positives of a situation are stronger than the negatives.

The best decisions tend to be made by those who can weigh the positives and negatives rationally. To do so requires a personality for which neither negativity or positiveness is dominant, and so they are able to utilise both aspects when needed.

In those with any significant degree of power over others, such relative neutrality is rare, perhaps exceedingly rare. Most people of power tend to be skilful in role playing, but their strong egos prevent them from making the most holistically rational decisions. The actions they choose will always be primarily related to how to satisfy their egos - an impossible task. They will almost always be positive people, because being positive tends to give a person the most social rewards and when young they learn skills in how to manipulate others through role playing.

Consistent neutrality can come from understanding reality to a high level, and through this knowledge the role the ego plays in relation to decision making becomes muted. In the enlightened, the ego is still there, but its focus is on satisfying rationality for rationality's sake rather than sating ones own feminine emotional desires. By feminine I means those emotions that lead to actions where the purpose is a reward of getting something from outside, rather than the masculine emotions that tend to be about using the rational mind to give something from within.

In the most masculine minded, giving something from within occurs without a desire for any material reward (and I include things like sexual attention from females as a material reward). As their ego is geared towards rationality however, this does not mean they will not have a desire for acceptance of what they give from within, namely logical reasoning and knowledge.

Pessimistic people are often lead to seek answers and positive outcomes due to suffering caused by the actions of the more egotistical. These actions often harm a persons social ego, they force the emotion of doubt in oneself and lead people to more and more inward reflection. Such reflection though, in those naïve about reality, as I was for instance, will often mean that the negative person becomes insecure, and this insecurity leads to a weakened ego, as the person does not have the guts to assume new personality roles, and thus misses out on the life experiences that would strengthen their ego, and give them the discipline to achieve difficult tasks. When the suffering becomes deep, they may sometimes break out in fits of uncontrolled ego, in order to alleviate the ego - an extreme example of this would be the recent spate of shootings, and a very common example would be those who attempt to diet - but as soon as the suffering alleviates they retreat back into old habits, which includes their overall pessimistic personality.

Consistent neutrality can come from understanding reality to a high level, and through this knowledge the role the ego plays in relation to decision making becomes muted. In the enlightened, the ego is still there, but its focus is on satisfying rationality for rationality's sake rather than sating ones own feminine emotional desires. By feminine I means those emotions that lead to actions where the purpose is a reward of getting something from outside, rather than the masculine emotions that tend to be about using the rational mind to give something from within.

In the most masculine minded, giving something from within occurs without a desire for any material reward (and I include things like sexual attention from females as a material reward). As their ego is geared towards rationality however, this does not mean they will not have a desire for acceptance of what they give from within, namely logical reasoning and knowledge.

I don't want to take too much away from your post, because on the whole it is very accurate; but there is a confusion not just with you but with the whole board about the masculine and the feminine. You stated that the masculine is what gives from within without an obvious reward, but that is acually the feminine. The reward is a feeling, as the beneficiaries of your action are felt as a part of you. The masculine is more involved in self-direction and self-benefit apart from the whole. The masculine is what sees an outside that can be used by the internal self, and so it is very involved with negativity or the forgetfulness of union. The masculine may turn its attention to try to benefit those outside the self, but the feeling reward that you mention is about you helping, not about those being helped. It's easy to fall into judgments about which is better, masculine or feminine, but they operate simultaneously. They are both abstractions or differentiations of Truth, and within Truth they are combined.