"It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Have you ever noticed the obvious overabundance of ancient and modern MALE “enlightened masters”?

Of course, there are a few identified modern female teachers. But, clearly, males seem to dominate that career choice and, since we choose the 'enlightened master,' I suppose it seems logical that such a choice would conform to the status quo.

I always find it surprising how attaining insight, not available through conventionality, seems to strictly conform to the conventional. Therefore, to attain your blissful self-transcendence seek out the male teacher. Let's face it, yang has dominated yin for centuries and male truth transmission is the accepted method of 'awakening.' Who am I to suggest otherwise?

God is yo Daddy!

Of course, there's Hicks and Katie and that Buddha lady, but every paradigm needs it deviants to further strengthen the paradigm.

But what about the ancients?  There are loads more male truth transmitters than female. Wazupwidat?

Several years ago there was a medical study that demonstrated that if you give group therapy to women diagnosed with terminal cancer, they will increase their longevity by statistically significant levels. Simply through a depth of engaging with others they seemed to have offset the progress of disease (samples consisted of chemo and group, chemo and no group).

Statistically, women have always lived longer than men and that has been determined to correlate with an ease of relating that many women seem trained to engage with and a depth of engagement women seem to initiate, often spontaneously (whereas, statistically speaking, men engage around football). Women seem to have a better handle on the therapeutic 'talking cure' for stress.

Except, that gap seems to be closing as more women enter the male dominated work force, where depth of engagement is frowned on unless an outcome is sought. In the world of male work, engagement is essentially manipulative.

There is no proprietary truth that you must have transmitted from the male master (or any master). There is only the truth of deep relating and that alone will aid you IN the world and in transcending the world.

In other words, “It's the relationship, stupid!”

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Men, threatened by femininity which they could never posess, had a tendancy to kill the women and steal their ideas.  Or rewrite history.   It made it easier to 'control' women and to justify that control.  One of the reasons earth has been such a lovely planet to live on over the last few hundred years.*


*sarcasm alert :-D

That being said… history being rewritten was not complete.  We hardly hear about the old Female Prophetesses any more… but if you look into a few– for example, Isis– you may hear stories about how most of the spiritual practice of the west origonated from Isis.  So they say.  You may also read of her wise words, and hear stories of a temple which long ago went into hiding– which some say still exists to this day…

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi~

I think the nuances that underlie all culture come from women.  Women invented together and gathered closely together to form the tools of drying, weaving, medicine, birthing, story, et al, while the men went out and hunted and conquered and in their moments of leisure became jealous.  The Venus of Willendorf, so small, yet she weights a shadow on the history of that awe in men, on how the women mirror the cycle of the Earth.  As men set out to conquer the Earth, they have set out to conquer that very mirror…which is woman.  I think more has been stolen from the confidente of women than this world can ever fully realize.  Women prophetess's have been labeled crazy, possessed, prostitutes, and their silent counterparts (perhaps more self-preserving) labled virtuous and obedient.

Yet, still we gather, invent together and heal one another.  I would go as far as to say that men have even twisted the woman's movement to their own advantage, which is a whole different topic.

But all things being equal, women are just as cunning as men in the new age spiritual blitz and biz of the last one hundred years or so.

Peace~

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hey Alan and Nahnni,

Yes, clearly the pugnacious patriarchal value system has reigned supreme for many centuries. Addressing that topic is easy and never-ending. However, could we say that what men have really lost, in their need for control, is the value of relationship? Therefore, maybe men are more alienated from themselves and the world, while women are actually more amenable to facilitating the unconditional love of an “enlightened” state.

We can excoriate the male until we're blue in the face, but I contend that their only deficit is failing to grasp the incredible value of relationship, thereby keeping at the surface, where illusion and disillusionment exist.

Women could redirect the course of disease through engaging deeply with one another and there's much to be said for deeply understanding and being understood. Possibly women have known 'enlightenment' exists in the shared depths, since the love for a child is the closest one can come to the 'unconditional' ego.

So why look to men to teach it?

Nahnni, I'm not convinced that “women are just as cunning as men” in the spiritual biz. And based on the fact that men primarily control that biz, could it be that women seek something other than what men seek and, in fact, get something entirely different merely because women are more relationship attuned? Do women use spirituality to engender and facilitate relating between egos, while men seek greater control of ego? Do women unconsciouly employ spirituality to share “truth,” while men employ it to control “truth”?

Most of the so-called modern masters I have frequently blasted involve male domination of truth and setting the rules on how that truth is accessed. Yet, even Byron Katie, quite the spiritual business women, has more of a psychological counselor schtick as opposed to “spiritual master.”

Obviously there are several female “masters” in antiquity, but once again they seem marginalized and forever in the minority.

Is spirituality a sexist domain similar to many other conventional realms? Are women unaware of sexist spiritual agendas?

Just wondering…
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

I think this may be about even our dominant modes of spirituality reflect what's going on in the wider society. We've had a couple of thousand years of patriarchy. That has run alongside monotheism. Hardly surprising when you think about it..put a man in charge and its pretty likely he'll come up with a command and control type structure. Even in the games they play, boys play to win, they want rules etc. That more agentic tendency is just more inclined to locate power in the individual.

Go back to the Greeks and Romans. Polyytheistic societies had much more room for goddess figures. Not exclusively, but the nature of such a spirituality would tend to be more inclusive, it wouldn't seek control. There would be gods and goddesses together. The stories of the greek gods, even the male ones, reflect much more the idea of playing or continuing a game, I'm sure there are some stories where not only were challenges issued to mortals, weren't the gods and goddesses taking bets on the result? How much more playful could it be?

So a more feminine model would seek to include men, not shut them out.
A more male model would have a male in charge, passing on his strength, wisdom, battle strategy or power through a structured framework. Change the subject to spirituality, you get the same thing.

So I'm not sure its sexist, per se. It can certainly lok like it, particularly if societies go through phases of denying/repressing women's spirituality, to the point that they demonise anything that signifies feminine power. Not so long ago MIke's women's cancer support group would have found themselves tried as witches.

It seems to me what we are seeing is in some ways the natural effect of a society which is out of balance. Our society as it stands, and has stood for centuries, could only have one single dominant God, and it would have to be male. Sort of like an army only having one commander in chief. mm I guess that means I'm suggesting we make God in our own image………how's that for turning an old idea on its head.

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Liz~

You said this very, very well.  I missed your post as I was writing mine, and yours is much more thorough. 

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Mike~

I will concede that many of the women “spiritual” teachers do employ “…more of a psychological counselor schtick as opposed to “spiritual master,” (ie: Caroline Myss as well), but even in conceding this, I question the motivations of more than a few women “spiritual leaders”.  One that comes to mind is Doreen Virtue, the Angel therapist.  But even in listing her, I often wonder if she, among others, is not merely, or has merely become, enchanted with her own enchantments.  And did Shirley Maclaine's sojourn into the business really warrant a $300. per attendee ticket sale?

But, I do agree with your position on the difference between men and women in the approach to spiritual teaching.  I do see men as more controlling of the ego agenda.  I think historically, male spiritual/religious leaders have been held up as the only “valid” leadership.  This obviously came to be standard fare with the metamorphosis of the many gods into the single and unyielding patriarchal Deity of Judeo-Christian theology…which men then insisted on reflecting under the great ego authority of the male godhead.  Mary, herself, becomes only a virtuous servant (though many women quietly elevate Her status.)  Mary Magdelene the unvirtuous one (but now being considered anew).  Men were fearful of the independence of Lillith, and so invented a weaker Eve. 

Are women unaware of sexist spiritual agendas?

I think women gather together, separate from male influence, clearly in order to avoid these agendas of power and to truly commune with what women seem to understand intuitively among each other.  I think men who seek the yin and the yang in spiritual matters have a difficult time in finding a comfortable place within the overall spiritual community.  Their motivations are not always trusted within the feminine spiritual circles and the patriarchy will often suspect (and deny) the desire to merge the previously proclaimed opposites.  But, yes, women appear more relationship oriented in seeking spiritual community.

But, if they are seeking beyond the rules of the patriarchial faith systems, they remain hidden and/or secretive for the most part.  Thus, there remains separation.

Blessings~

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hahaaa!

Funny, but as we discuss this topic I glance at the Gaia sidebar and what do I see:

“Isha: Why Walk When You Can Fly”

Wow! click the link and check out the marketing promo for this one. Pure glitze!
She has a great costume coordinator, with the faux-gaucho cap and Indian poncho. Quite an attractive hip and trendy woman (imagine if she was a dumpy frau, would she still be credible in the postmodern world of spiritual glitze and glow?)

But what does she teach?

Well obviously to be credentialed as a master-teacher, you need to create your own specialized concepts like “The Isha System” (of course, transcendence, or “flying,” needs to be systematic). Then we have the “Diamond Portal,” because every body knows that diamonds are “a girl's best friend,” (regardless how many have died in the acquisition thereof). So what else?

Drink water, exercise, “be real” and “always speak your truth.”

oh pleeeaaase!

“What this system proposes is the opportunity to experience unconditional love of self.”

Unconditional love of self? Whaaa? What about everybody else?

You know…it is becoming abundantly clear to me, almost without a doubt, that these self-absorbed awakening “systems” merely keep us on the road to mutual assured, collective, self destruction.

Poor Isha! Playing the man's “awakening” game without even realizing the rules of that game are no longer sustainable. Maybe “Isha” is really a male “master” in drag!

Too Bad!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

And furthermore…

Here's a little essay on “enlightenment” that I thought might be helpful to all those seekers out there still sitting at the guru's feet.

LINK

'wake up' people…
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Mike~

Sometimes, I think it comes down to if you are able to make an extremely good living on the spiritual train, you can almost convince yourself that Grace resides within the struggle-less life in this material world.  All one needs is the blueprint and enough hubris to expound the platitudes that keep the crowd following.  Sometimes, I think such a brand of enlightenment is how enlightened the guru is to the fragility in human nature when it comes to matters of spiritual longing.

Madonna was actually more honest in her “material girl” quest, which,
once accomplished, gave her all the leisure she now has for her own
enlightenment.  The fact that she is insane has little to do with the reality that she is her own goddess.  Queen of her own Yoga and Kabbalah universe.  She would have made an excellent spiritual teacher of the new age persuasion.  All the chutzpah is clearly present.  And who knows, perhaps one day in her dotage she will decide to become the new Aimee Semple McPherson and many will follow.

But I do think there are some who are sincere.  Extremely sincere.  One just rarely hears about them, is all.

Blessings~

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Nahnni,

Yes, there are those who are sincere and you have met them and they have come in and out of your life and you are one of them. However, payments were made, just not in money. These transactions occur frequently even now.
I suppose now all we need do is recognize what was learned and thank them (quietly, to ourselves).

Thanks!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

you know mike…

not everyone has these deep rewarding relationships with their family.  perhaps you were meaning this link to be inspiring … but perhaps (?) it was also rather manipulative…

as usual - relating from my personal experience:

before meeting my teacher, and embarking on “spiritual” travel, when i was still a housewife in my neat little compartmentalized life, my father became ill with cancer and died from complications from cancer surgury.  now, perhaps i was more of a head case than “normal” but i could not relate to him with any depth while was dying… and even avoided the depth of confrontation with his death…  and after he was dead - i faced myself … and was shocked at myself… so much so - that the grief of it propelled me into being a “seeker”.  the teacher was right there.  so, as i mentioned elsewhere, leapt in… sitting, so to speak, at the guru's feet.  but it isn't what you think it is mike…  it is an active relationship.  dynamic and two way… and learning IS two ways. 
and what i learned in that relationship, along with the other people there (and those relationships) was NOT available in my family experience.
so when when i came out of all of that - and a few years later - my brother lay dying of cancer - i was able to commune with him, and he with me, with such depth that we had never been access before… AND he confided in me, that i was only one in the family that he felt comfortable with - everyone else infused with such fear and confusion…

so - i couldn't let that one go by - without adding my experience…
because all of these relationships are important, and as a people, many of us simply are not equipped, do not know about depth… or if we do know then we are afraid to access depth - so afraid that the opportunities slip by…
and so - bring in other forms of relationships where depth can be explored…
some teachers do that.

i know that is not your view… but, it is, my friend, my truth.

warmly
christine

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

That is a powerful story, Christina.  You have a courageous and tender spirit.

I do not see so much that anyone is saying that a spiritual guidance, nor seeking out that guidance, is not valuable, for indeed, it is valuable.  I think what the concern is, and has been thematically, is the preponderance of those who hold themselves up as spiritual leaders while essentially fleecing the sheep.  I think the concern also rests in the focus of these leaders to feed into a sort of self-indulgent/self-absorbed outlook on spirituality that does nothing to ease the troubles in this world that are very real, and very crucial to be looked at seriously and compassionately and then gathering collective solutions for.

I would hold that discernment is imperative and as I have ever stated, it matters what we do, not only to ourselves as individuals, but toward all those things beyond ourselves.  The tender care of the spirit begins with self reflection, but it is not exclusive to the self, as I sense you might agree.  I see your experience as being one of Grace, because you not only came to realize things in yourself, but you passed your strength gained in wisdom outward.  I think this is what a spiritual teacher is all about, one on one guidance or small gathering, sharing, being real…not something one sits before in an auditorium, having handed over a fee more toward the prosperity of the leader than much of anything else; although, perhaps, in the end, it is a start for some…though far too many seem to park their car in the guru's parking lot and let it rust.  It becomes cultist, and that does no one really any progress of spirit.  I would see a spiritual teacher as one who not only guides, but knows his/her value to the student is not a rock/limpet situation.  The student grows and carries the wisdom gained outward and onward.

I have been thinking about what Frans said, in part, and I suppose it serves no real purpose in mocking these more flagrant leaders, although we may yet marvel.  Let the chips fall where they may, as it were.

Blessings, my Friend, and thank you for sharing your experience.

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

hi Nahnni

i hear what you are saying - thanks.
i don't know what gets into me - this wacky propulsion to tell “my story” sometimes.  using my life as an illustration?  maybe too honest and too open for such a venue such as this… for it seems i am the only one here that “shares” like this… but perhaps i am simply  more self indulgent than most.

i am mulling over what i read last night in Carses book - about storytelling.   in his view - an infinite player tells the story  for the sake of the story itself - not to “teach” something.  looking at my motives - perhaps i am trying to teach… to be seen in a certain way perhaps… i'm not sure.  i am seen how i am… but am i TRYING to do that, or am i simply what i am?
just some questions - my own self inquiry.
christine

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hello Christine :)

Some speak in story to illustrate their meaning, their truth.  Perhaps you are such a one. 

Blessings~

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Christine,

not everyone has these deep rewarding relationships with their family.

Family? The link I posted addressed only one 'form' of relationship (parent-child). Yet, I can see how you would extrapolate that to summarize what I am asserting. Other posts have highlighted my chief point that from the depth of engagement, truth is encountered and to access such content no specific form of relating need be necessary. You could access depth with your guru or your mailman. My point was that no proprietary truth is transferred that is unique to, or 'owned' by, any one person. It's the depth of engagement that makes truth available TO BE known.
To contend that I recommend or suggest only family relationships is a bit disingenuous.

perhaps you were meaning this link to be inspiring … but perhaps (?) it was also rather manipulative…

It is what it is and becomes what it becomes. I have no specific outcome in mind except to Fully Engage. I have no investment in the direction things take. In fact, my initial post addresses two different questions and the Ishi comment is more an aside to that. Some will engage from a position of disagreement, some from agreement and some a little of both. I suppose if my comments engender negative feelinsg in some, than it would be beneficial to explore that in depth to see what we arrive at.

but it isn't what you think it is mike…  it is an active relationship.  dynamic and two way… and learning IS two ways.

Once again you make assumptions on what I “think” from one specific post linking to an essay on one specific form of relationship. Of course, relationships are dynamically “two way,” yet the traditional egoic teacher-student relationship may deny this aspect. Thus, I can understand the ego's resistance to finding this in the mundane everyday relationships of the common man/woman. I merely assert that it is through those relationships that collective salvation may be possible. We are all student and teacher.

because all of these relationships are important, and as a people, many
of us simply are not equipped, do not know about depth… or if we do
know then we are afraid to access depth - so afraid that the
opportunities slip by…

True, the ego-self fears annihilation through depth and avoids it. However, I contend that in some way or another we have encountered depth of engagement along our path. It would most likely benefit our collective survival is “all of these relationships are important.” I believe we are all “equipped” for and that we do know the value that can be experienced through and with others.

and so - bring in other forms of relationships where depth can be explored…
some teachers do that.

Some do and some do not. So I should not speak of those who I feel do not, for fear of upsetting them? Your views on depth of relating seem quite similar to mine and many of the posts I have initiated on this topic. However, You feel all student-teacher relationships facilitate this depth and I do not.

Once again, it would be a good idea not to extrapolate an entire thesis based on one post. However, questioning I find works well in determining what is meant. I attempt to hone in on the 'content' available through all relationships and am totally unconcerned with what 'form' that content is accessed.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

hi mike
 
However, You feel all student-teacher relationships facilitate this depth and I do not.

no.  i don't.  i think it depends on the characteristics, conditions of both people in that relationship.  although, people may have their own idea about what “depth” is - and i don't suppose people would be in such a relationship if they did not percieve it as meaningful in some way…

Once again, it would be a good idea not to extrapolate an entire thesis based on one post.
 
your right - i thought though that i had a sense of your view based on other posts… i guess not.  sorry.

oh … and sorry for being … um… disingenuous … (now i am going to look up what it means!)

i like your direct style too… and did not suggest to dissuade you from it (not that i ever could).  … just noticing it . 

warm regards
christine



 

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

…mmm… disingenuous - great word! just looked it up!
mike -
To contend that I recommend or suggest only family relationships is a bit disingenuous.
 
well, it may of sounded like that  - but i was not thinking that you were suggesting only family relationships… i was thinking that you felt that all student teacher relationships were much less valuable in regard to “awakening” than a parent child relationship.
i did jump to conclusions … sorry!

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Chrsitine,

i was thinking that you felt that all student teacher relationships
were much less valuable in regard to “awakening” than a parent child
relationship.

Actually, I am saying that all relationships which can attain to depth of understanding are valuable. I am also suggesting that this is the only transference that occurs (and it is not any transference at all, more a creation) and there is no proprietary linear transmission of truth from teacher to student (relative truth maybe, but who cares about that, since the world has numerous paradigms for that transmission).

The teacher who recognizes that it is only through a depth of understanding that truth is encountered is, IMHO, the genuine teacher. Not an understanding of some specialized concepts, which merely provide an illusion of “wisdom” based on the world's acceptance of what “wisdom” is, but merely self understanding self as deeply as possible. This is the old “when two join together as one” axiom. But, It is not a literal joining, particularly in regards to bodies, which is not a joining at all, but a joining of minds through seeking to deeply understanding one another. But now who will take such a risk? Because inherent in that risk is the fear of a loss of self.

Therefore, if the teacher is seen as providing some form of salvational information, that is unique to the teacher and not available to the student, then as I see it, this is inauthentic and denies the relationship as the means to truth.

Depth of relating facilitates an equality that cannot be found outside the joining of two minds in an intimacy of understanding. This is an encounter with 'love' that is created from the relationship provided that neither party enters into the relating with any preconception of what love is or, at the least, is willing to discard all preconceptions as to that 'joining.'

This is the infinite game, because there is no limit on how deeply two or more can understand one another and it has absolutely nothing to do with “wisdom” which are merely platitudes for how to negotiate the world. Intimate awakening can take one beyond the world, because through continued depths of understanding, sensation loses its appeal to truth.

Just saying, of course…
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Christine,

your right - i thought though that i had a sense of your view based on other posts… i guess not.  sorry.

Oh good grief! Now I feel guilty for chastising you, for chastising me, for chastising Siona, for chastising me (yet, how come I come up 3 times?).

My “direct style' has failed me on many occasions although I have noted that individuals with a secure sense of 'self' have little difficulties letting me have it.
Nevertheless, I will eat crow when required and have done so frequently. As I have stated before, I have no problem being wrong and sometimes my failure to fully grasp ideas and concepts keeps the game going and brings in more players, (simply to refute me!).

Anyway, no apologies necessary since it's nothing but a thang…
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

mike S.

I do not have a spiritual teacher, nor am I particularly drawn to the guru path. I do, however, try to treat people with respect and courtesy, even in their absence, and your dismissal of “poor Isha” (who teaches to inmates in maximum security prisons as well as to those who come to her center) sounds more to me as though it's contributing to unkindness and misunderstanding than compassion and peace. Perhaps, though, I don't understand where your own values lie.

Also, did you see this recent article in the New York Times?

“As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force”

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Siona,

Many years ago, before I acquired a license to provide psychotherapy, I worked in a prison, just outside Philadelphia. The prison was both maximum and medium security and I taught inmates and they taught me for approx. 8 years. They were a captive audience, but then so was I (and so are we all). Some of my most incredible learning episodes occurred within those walls. However, I had no illusion that I was any different than they were.

I wonder if that's what Isha believes?

I may misunderstand the person (but she really provides little of that at least through her marketing), but I don't believe I misunderstand the “guru” profession and I am becoming more aware that this profession does not perpetuate “compassion and peace” and really never has. Although I can understand how it would appear that way through the conventional conditioning we are all victim to that helps us bypass existential reality.

Isha may in fact be a wonderful person, as are we all. However, I stand by my assertion of “poor” since, as long we look to another, superior in character or thought/belief, to save us, we will most likely remain poor in spirit and thus mutually annihilate one another from that poverty.

“unkindness”? I tend to see it as productive conflict. However, I understand that some would prefer that only kind things be said, but then i imagine many might 'think' it and is there really any difference between the thought and the word?

Do you believe our thoughts are inconsequential, while only our words contribute to “compassion and peace”? Are there those among us pure of mind?

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

So are you any different than Isha, then?

I suppose I'm curious about what you're trying to achieve. Should gurus be banned? Should spiritual teachers be licensed? If people feel they want a guide, what's wrong with letting them choose one? I prefer to trust that most contemporary spiritual teachers (self-appointed or othewise) from Adyashanti to Eckhart Tolle to Byron Katie to Isha are sincere and authentic in their desire to help people, and I appreciate the general thrust of contemporary spirituality–that is, the urging toward inquiry, toward trusting one's own personal experience, to develop compassion and equanimity and centeredness–more than I do the more traditional religions which might have prioritized “The Church” (or its interpreters) as the authority.

Frankly, I think those who preach the God / religion of money are contributing to more divisiveness and discord in the world than a few spiritual teachers with a relatively miniscule collection of seekers (misguided or otherwise).

I know my mind is far from pure. I don't know about the minds of others.

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

So are you any different than Isha, then?

I would say no. However, i'm not sure what she would say? I wonder if she is open to what they teach or merely insists that they learn from her?

I suppose I'm curious about what you're trying to achieve.

Achieve? I have no outcome in mind. However, would you wish to achieve an end to this type of critical discourse?

I prefer to trust that most contemporary spiritual teachers
(self-appointed or othewise) from Adyashanti to Eckhart Tolle to Byron
Katie to Isha are sincere and authentic in their desire to help people…”

But just not me? You don't like my rules? well, I don't like their's and thus, I play with their rules. What gives them more credibility than you or I? I have helped a great many people and I'll bet you have to. So you completely deny that these profitable enterprizes can harm? Bit naive, don't you think?

and I appreciate the general thrust of contemporary spirituality–that is, the urging toward inquiry,

I love to inquire and question everything. But you wish to impede my inquiry? Because you don't like my methods? Because I'm incompassionate?
Because I criticise their methods as you criticize mine? hmmm….Is there a double standard at work here?

toward trusting one's own personal experience,

Do you trust your own experience? Or only when it is interpreted through the teacher's ideology?

to develop compassion and equanimity and centeredness–

Are you implying that I'm not “compassionate” because I question a paradigm and that is exactly what I question, the 'enlightened master' paradigm?
This is the second time you've employed that term “compassion” and so I wonder what judgment has been made. You are certainly free to judge me, as I judge the gurus. However, I am not a proprietor of truth and expect to be criticized. Do they? Why should their methods not be held up to the light like you hold up mine?

more than I do the more traditional religions which might have prioritized “The Church” (or its interpreters) as the authority.

You are against “traditional religions”? So you choose one ideology over another, because they are all ideological. Is not Isha presenting herself as an “authority”? Is organized religion any different than that?

Siona, I recognize that you have a vested business interest in Gaia advertizing. If you would prefer that the advertisers not be critiqued, then that is certainly understandable.

Just say so.
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

hi mike and siona and all

just a little note here mike - it looks to me that you may be taking the conversation with Siona a little more personally than it was intended…

of course each of you is welcome to your views - and the discussion of it is an excellent and challenging exchange…

mike  - is it possible that you leapt to some conclusions about being judged?  - that's what it read it to me.

certainly mike - you often express a less popular view, and you do so in a very direct way  - and i think your view and even your way of “speaking” is valuable - it is worth looking at - especially if our “buttons” DO get pushed… so, thanks mike! - as stimulating as usual (-:

Siona - just for the record - and to put in my two cents - i do have a similar view to yours in regard to teachers etc… 

hi all - i have enjoyed everyone's comments in this thread
hi Jenny - welcome to the pod!

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Christine,

it looks to me that you may be taking the conversation with Siona a little more personally than it was intended…

hmmm… it looks that way to you?

is it possible that you leapt to some conclusions about being judged?  - that's what it read it to me.

My views were judged as incorrect. But so what? I view parts of Siona's perspective as incorrect. Does judgment in any form create a feeling of discomfort that need be quickly escaped? I have no investment in being right, only in continuing the discussion and generating as many views as possible.
I don't feel I attacked Siona “personally” in any ad hominem way. However, if she feels that way than I apologize as this was not intended. However, I do feel that my questions were relevant. And it does seem to me that I was being judged as incompassionate and so asked if this was the case. That may be a misunderstanding on my part. If so, I will apologize for the misunderstanding. I have no problem being wrong and do not fear judgment and can easily apologize for unintended consequences.

certainly mike - you often express a less popular view, and you do so in a very direct way 

What! Are you saying i'm unpopular around here? “certainly”?
Wow! This I did not know. You have opened my eyes to my 'self.'
Do folks have an investment in adhereing to the 'popular view'? Is there a need to maintain conventionality? I'm not sure what you mean by that 'judgment'?

I will take your evaluation under consideration. Maybe I should change my method, or “direct way” of engaging?

nah….
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Nah, indeed, Mike

I like your direct style……..one of the reasons I like it is it frees me to be just as direct back. I can be blunt, provocative, challenge what you say just for the hell of it, confident you will pull no punches and come straight back. I'm not always attached to some of the views I express, sometimes it is about trying to expose all sides of something. I know from experience this is a very black and white medium and I've learned over the years to be more careful about how I express myself. With you I don't do that, I don't feel the need.

It's fun to have the freedom to be direct, no time wasted on dressing it up nicely, trying to package it for an audience. I know it wouldn't work with everyone, but your style is like an inviation saying “hit me straight between the eyes, I can take it”.

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Expressing a less popular view directly gives spice to life, and to Gaia.

Keep on keeping on, brother,

Nicole

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Nahnni
Oh I'm so glad you are here. How odd that we should do that at the same time

 I do see men as more controlling of the ego agenda.  I think historically, male spiritual/religious leaders have been held up as the only “valid” leadership.  This obviously came to be standard fare with the metamorphosis of the many gods into the single and unyielding patriarchal Deity of Judeo-Christian theology…which men then insisted on reflecting under the great ego authority of the male godhead.  Mary, herself, becomes only a virtuous servant (though many women quietly elevate Her status.)  Mary Magdelene the unvirtuous one (but now being considered anew).  Men were fearful of the independence of Lillith, and so invented a weaker Eve. 
 
It's much too easy to think that if it looks like a plot, and feels like a plot, well it has to be a plot. Of course such a social structure prevents women from functioning to their full ability. Not only does it deal with the social system, but it brings in the religious dimension too. So not only are the men in charge, God WANTS IT that way! And what would they create? Well armies for a start, hierarchies, class systems…a place for everything and everything in its place.

Fortunately I think we are sitting in a place where change is happening. If the next phase is going to take place over thousands of years then it's understandable a couple of generations isn't enough to see major shifts. However women's lives, in the west at least, don't look like they did 100 years ago. I think there is a growing understanding that we don't want to compete in a man's psychological world, we don't want to “make it” by being more masculine than the men. We don't accept those terms of participation. It'll take time, its not easy to work through relationship in a world thats set up for command and control type decision making. Also many of the social institutions are set up in such a way that only incremental decision making is possible. THis provides stability, eg stops political parties completely dismantling legislation and economy after each election, but also works to guard adainst any radical change. That problem then is that the systems are so entrenched, its hard to implement radical change, even if people were clear about what was needed.

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Liz,

I think there is a growing understanding that we don't want to compete
in a man's psychological world, we don't want to “make it” by being
more masculine than the men. We don't accept those terms of
participation.

Women may choose to no longer accept those terms in ever greater numbers, but if you cannot get men to reject those terms, you will remain a minority voice. If you allow us to kill ourselves, in ever greater numbers, we will eventually take you with us.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reject all truth not realized through an all inclusive relating that excludes no one in the understanding that proprietary truth is unsustainable and merely reinforces the male model of power and control.

This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Good Luck!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reject all truth not realized through an all inclusive relating that excludes no one in the understanding that proprietary truth is unsustainable and merely reinforces the male model of power and control.
Hmm reject all truth not realised through an inclusive relating that excludes no one. Are you serious? Surely that's nothing more than an appeal to find the lowest common denominator.
Proprietary truth………merely reinforces the male model of power.
I'm not so sure it does. It reflects the current state of development throught its expression in polotical systems, religion and even art. It could be argure that is slof reinforcing but while hard to shift, I think change is happening. It will take men and women working together because we both see there is another way that benefits us all.

Or, on the lighter side, I had a look at ISHA……….here's a note from a clip

When we get enlightened, a perfect and permanent union takes places between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, ie. the masculine and femenine. This means you have the full human experience of practical brain function and corporal awareness, within the union with all that exsists. Instead of fear and seperation, you experience the love and peace in everything and you know you are that, and we are all that. We are one, universal energy: love, or god. We realize that separation is an illusion, caused by the left hemisphere, or what Isha calls the “matrix of the intellect”.

In this video, Jill Bolt Taylor explains scientifically the nature of the right hemisphere through her amazing experience of going through a stroke.

So all we need to do is get enlightened, doh, why didn't we think of that before?
Oh and we must have imagined all that male role model stuff, cos all the enlightened ones are actually gender balanced. I've rarely read such rubbish.

Oh and if enlightenment is too much work, you could always consider having a stroke instead……………..no, sorry, I couldn't bring myself to watch the video clip

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Liz.

Hmm reject all truth not realised through an inclusive relating that
excludes no one. Are you serious? Surely that's nothing more than an
appeal to find the lowest common denominator.

Ha! Am I serious? I love when people get incredulous about my statements.
Actually, I'm not particularly serious with this one, which is why i employed the Mission Impossible tape scene. However, why not the highest common denominator?

I'm not so sure it does. It reflects the current state of development
through its expression in political systems, religion and even art. It
could be argue that is self reinforcing but while hard to shift, I
think change is happening.

Proprietary asserts ownership and thus, you are asserting that ownership of truth is based on development? This seems logical, however, it does not take into account leaps made by the mapmakers of antiquity.

In what way do you see change happening that is not simply a reflection of technological/scientific change? I don't see it, however, I'm open to seeing it if you would just point me in the right direction. At present I feel that, based on man's inhumanity to man, we have been regressing. This lead me to question whether the paradigm of the solitary seeker realizing transmission of truth from the master has relevance anymore. I thus posit a mutuality to the creation of truth in a collaborative effort denying proprietors of truth (not my idea, but read it somewhere). yet, this idea doesn't seem to go over very well. Which leads me to believe it is most likely incorrect or the ego-self will struggle to conserve its worn out, old paradigms.

no, sorry, I couldn't bring myself to watch the video clip

Actually I've seen the clip and Taylor's dissertation is quite compelling and very entertaining. However, although her experience was impactful for her, I'm not sure I resonate with the interpretation made after the experience. This is similar to Tolle, who experienced some kind of 'nervous breakdown' or severe depressive episode and then referred to this as his “dark night of the soul” applying varying spiritual interpretive jargon to the experience. These interpretations always seem to have the same theme. But is there any other?

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Yeah I felt guilty at condemning the clip without watching it. So I did.Goodness me, I'm a bit unsure of the professional credibility getting used to sell a highly subjective experience as scientifically validated. If I tell you I used to be a biochenist would that give me more authority when I tell you my opinions?

It looks to me like she understood and related it from the terms of reference she already had. Nothing wrong with that, what else could she be expected to do. If she'd been a Christian she'd have been bathed in God's love and come back saved and trying to save the rest of us.

I like the analogy with Tolle, it does seem some people are propelled into an experience by trauma of some kind. They then try to tell the rest of us we can access what they have, but miss out the trauma……..and in theory I don't disagree. Except it seems something has to happen to propel people to that experience….personal trauma, learning and a major cognitive shift, transmission from a teacher…………I suspect it has something to do with change. Change that is big enough to dismantle the preconceptions, big enough not to fit the current frame of reference or way of making sense of things. I suspect these things can happen to anyone, but they get interpreted from where the persons previous understanding was, because that's all they have with which to make sense of it.

Maybe

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Liz,

I like the analogy with Tolle, it does seem some people are propelled into an experience by trauma of some kind.

Yes, but isn't it ironic that we spend our lives in maximizing happiness and avoiding “trauma” only to have these enlightenment blokes, like Tolle, tell us through their 'story' that it was “trauma” that resulted in the “awakening” and the attendant joy. This harkens back to the old “rings of fire” analogy of Christianity. Sacrifice and suffering are the themes of our lives. Each story line, east and west, is just another version of scarifice and suffering.
Well I say poop on that! I aint sacrificing anything and I'm through struggling, since, what the bright minds tell you is that, after decades of struggle and scarifice, your enlightened realization actually informs you that none of that was needed anyway. So what up widat! I may be stupid, but I ain't no fool.

I suspect it has something to do with change. Change that is big enough
to dismantle the preconceptions, big enough not to fit the current
frame of reference or way of making sense of things.

Yea, a big massive shift in perception/conception creating a “change” that simply informs us that everything is as it should be and change is unnecessary. Hahaa!

Gotta love this game!!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi there,

I'm back from being gone for a few days.  This is one of my favourite subjects - the make versus the female.  In my opinion it's not about men and women anymore; it's about individuals incorporating both the masculine and feminine aspects in their being.  I'm convinced we all have full access to both and can move freely between the two polarities.  The practice of that is key to our survival, if you ask me…(I know - nobody did ask me :-) )

Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Maybe we should have asked you, Frans. :)

I agree - it's not about men and women. How freeing it is to incorporate more and more shadow and animus/anima elements into our life.

Love,

Nicole

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

I think you are right, Frans, in theory.  It is about incorporating.  Yet, the dilemma of inhumanity remains, even on the most basic level in either gender (ie: Phyllis Chesler's study on Woman's inhumanity to Woman), which can be startling and remains to exist. 

I'm convinced we all have full access to both and can move freely
between the two polarities.  The practice of that is key to our survival.

I would tend to agree to a great extent, yet am disheartened at this happening within the overall collective anytime soon.

Peace :)

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Frans,

hmmm…it seems, as Nahnni points out, “individuals incorporating both the masculine and feminine aspects in their being” hasn''t worked out quite that well since results are seriously lacking (in fact, the 20th century tends to emphasize regression). So I'm not so sure we have the necessary time to keep “practicing” that type of “incorporation” strategy. Reminds me of the concept of 'insanity' in which we continue to do the same thing over and over and over again and each time expect something different to happen. Possibly it is our 'best thinking' that brought us to this point in the first place. However, if you're like me, when you recognize something doesn't work you try something else.

I would suggest we discard the ancient yin/yang proverbs (and all the other religious dogma) since they are suited for an entirely different era less concerned with collective survival (besides we are relying on way to many interpretive translations so as to make the ancient ideas completely undecipherable). We may need to think outside those tired, old boxes and packages. However, I certainly recognize the egoic need to conserve the past.

So what masculine qualities would you wish to maintain that will insure our collective survival?

Just wondering…
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Nicole, Nahnni,

Is it only in theory?  I believe it's all about what each of us does, and I know from personal experience that I can encompass both agency and communion and live them fully - and if I can, you can.  All you need is to actually do so and forget about all the excuses, maybe?

Humanity, inhumanity - judgement?

Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Changing the world - one person at a time! It's not just a saying, it's the only thing we can do, really.

Thanks, Nahnni and Frans, always enjoy your posts,

Nicole 

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Nicole,

let me just provide a little twist to that. Maybe when one person at a time recognizes the need to teach everyone, everyone will learn what they need to teach and teach it.

We need to initiate a viral teaching that makes complete sense to each mind that encounters it and completely changes that mind through the encounter.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what that is, except that it need happen soon and it can't originate with “one person.”

It's a riddle!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Viral teaching. Hmm!

Do you think we all need to teach the same thing?

Nicole

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Frans~

I believe it's all about what each of us does

Oh absolutely!  I did not wish to imply that I do not see your point, or the point, as viable to the individual and how one approaches the balance.  Theory is perhaps the wrong word to have used.  What I am concerned with, is that in a collective sense, we have not come to an agreement–globally–on the greater road of these balances.  I realize these things start with one, and ripple outward.  This is the way of healing as best we can the fractures that have bound spiritual progress/collective balance over the millennia.

The past does influence, and to be aware of that is the discernment of the present, and hope for the future.  So I truly think that what we do makes a great difference.  And inhumanity does exist, and it does come from judgment, and what we do does matter.

But even as I say this, Frans, I wonder about the disservice those who thrive off their teachings do for those who seek and/or follow.  Those who become so enamored by the teaching, they discount the vast canvas of life as being opposed to that constricted, self absorption?  Is it my own judgment?  For the sake of argument, here, now, perhaps.  It is a position, certainly.  Do I discern for myself?  Yes.  Assuredly, I do marvel at all of the spiritual truths as set forth by a blueprint, as I have stated, but I am on no crusade beyond an observation to stop either teacher or student.  Life is fickle, and I do think, as I think you are saying, that what is found to be in right balance, one can practice in one's own life.  One must, if one is to be true to what does matter in the things we do.

Thank you, my Friend.  I hope I did not come across as too crazed, though it could be that I am crazed and cannot but succeed to come across as being so.  Oy.

Blessings :)

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

MikeS, Nahnni, Nicole,

Could it be that our concern for “that which others need to learn/teach” is nothing more than an escape from taking responsibility for what we do?  So that we can point the finger and say “yes, but look at them…” In other words - another ego-identification with being better than?

Is it possible to only concern ourselves with ourselves and trust (know) that everything else will be exactly as it “needs” to be - perfect for that moment?

Can we acknowledge that what we think is “for the good of all” may be in fact the opposite; that what we now see as being bad and awful has its own beautiful truth?  Can we acknowledge that we just don't know and that only our own actions have relevance?

Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Good one, Frans.  Speaking for myself, point acknowledged. 

Blessings~

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Could
it be that our concern for “that which others need to learn/teach” is
nothing more than an escape from taking responsibility for what we do? 
So that we can point the finger and say “yes, but look at them…”

yes, but now you've just negated all teachers and all teachings. But, hey, I'm okay with that if you are.

Can we acknowledge that we just don't know and that only our own actions have relevance?

But how could that be since, if we don't know, then we'd all be acting stupid, right? However, that may not be too far off the mark, since generally we all do act pretty stupid. Hahaa!

mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hey MikeS,

But how could that be since, if we don't know, then we'd all be acting stupid, right?

So, if we act as if we know (what we're really all doing), we act intelligently..?  You're kidding, right :-)?

Thing is, I'm not negating anything - everyone's actions have relevance - for them, just like mine have relevance for me…it's taking a stake in the outcome my actions have for others where things go sideways again.  That doesn't mean that I go inert, or that i stop caring, or stop doing - on the contrary, in fact.

Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Oh, okay, I guess I misunderstood.

Thing is, I'm not negating anything - everyone's actions have relevance - for them, just like mine have relevance for me…

so your actions have no relevance to anyone else and their actions have no relevance to you? Or, are you saying essentially that everyone should just look out for number one and let everybody else do the same?

it's taking a stake in the outcome my actions have for others where things go sideways again. That doesn't mean that I go inert, or that i stop caring, or stop doing - on the contrary, in fact.

So are you “taking a stake” in what your actions have for you, above what your actions have for others? Are “you” essentially more important than others or are others more important than you? Or is it the same? But how can it be the same since we often do things that benefit ourselves, but have absolutely no benefit to others?

Which is it?
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

I was thinking about this myself, recently–that is, the abundance of male gurus and the relative absence of female ones–and then wondered whether there was an inverse reciprocation when it came to so-called “channeled” spiritual teachings; for some reason it's easier for me to think of female channelers than male ones. Are women uncomfortable being the “I” behind a message, and more content to be vehicles for it? Are they more available as vessels? Or is it the same scam with different language?

(And forgive me; I know this wasn't quite the topic you'd begun. Perhaps I should start a new thread.)

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hey MikeS,

What I'm saying is that your actions only have relevance to you, and my actions only have relevance to me - and same for everyone, always.  The part of “everyone” that perceives different from my statement is the ego.  At the same time that doesn't mean at all that I am more important than anyone - on the contrary, it places literally everyone at the same “level” - the guru, the student, the child, the dictator, the simpleton (that's me).

From the level of ego, we do things to achieve an outcome, always placing a charge in the dynamic - no matter how “good” our intentions.  From this level, you can never have action that comes completely divorced from a desired outcome.  What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter at all what anybody else does - this is where we keep losing all our energy - it only matters what we do and how we choose to either judge and attach and resist or to let happen without any of those, even without resisting to resist.

To grok this, to understand this very deeply will change our actions; it will bring about moments of pure action without thought as we know it now - the attaching, judging kind…from those initial moments we practice and life starts to open - and paradoxically, when you've understood your desire to influence others and no longer have that need, in those moments of clarity - that's when you actually do influence others, because your energy has changed completely and that's what anything and everything reacts to…

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Have only just dropped in on this discussion which is pretty interesting. If we look at what our inherent assumptions are when discussing these issues we see several things:
1.  we criticise women for earning money for teaching spiritual things but nobody criticised any men, 
2. we are looking at it from a western perspective, nobody mentioned that indigenous peoples have or had a very different perspective on women before the influence of western “civilisation”. Women are seen as important as but different from men. It is generally a more complementary view. 
3. the male/female discussion will never go away because we are different and have very different functions and yes we each have male and female aspects to our selves but inherently the majority of us are one or the other, without getting into too much discussion about homosexuality, if a lesbian has a baby she still experiences a female expression of self during that birth process. Her relationship including the birth experience, with her child will profoundly affect her worldview. 
4. While men can make great fathers they will never quite get that death of the ego a woman can experience when she becomes a mother but thats ok because we do play different roles. Even if a woman doesnt have children she is genetically (DNA) programmed to be that way, be more likely to be an enabler, or a nurturer, can fail to see the value in being the guru. 

Notice I am saying “can”. There are always variations to an idea.

So who's right?  Nobody. But it makes for good discussion. The paternalistic swing of the pendulum doesnt have much further to go and it will swing back again and at some point in the far distant future someone will be having a discussion about whether we have become too matriarchal. Life is cyclic like the seasons and thats how it is meant to be.

This picture borrowed from Theresa Reihana
http://www.maoriartist.com/maori_art_gallery.htm
Ranginui, Sky father and Papatuanuku, earth mother, were separated from their close and loving embrace by their children so that light and life could enter the world. Their love for each other and the pain of their separation can be seen in their tears for each other, the rain and the mist.

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

(christine waves to Jenny)
hi Jenny!  welcome

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

(waving back to Christine), Hi Christine nice to see you again.

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Frans, very well said!

Nicole

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Frans,

From the level of ego, we do things to achieve an outcome, always
placing a charge in the dynamic - no matter how “good” our intentions. 
From this level, you can never have action that comes completely
divorced from a desired outcome

Frans, what you're essentially saying is that ego does only “bad' things and thus we must detach from egoic actions so that we do only 'good' things? So if my ego chooses to do a good deed for another, work to feed the starving, work to aid the poor, I am doing a 'bad' thing? Or are you saying that when I do these things I have no egoic attachment to the 'actions'?
Are you sure you're not simply performing the same old strategy of vilifying the ego-self?

To grok this, to understand this very deeply will change our actions;
it will bring about moments of pure action without thought as we know
it now - the attaching, judging kind…

This seems to me the typical 'no-mind' esoteric teachings that have really done little to effect collective change as the collective regresses into more technological modes of self-destruction.
Fran, my ego has judged you as a good person and there is no outcome it requires from that judgment. Is my ego wrong in making such a judgment?
Ego transcendence may have worked well for the axial age, but it is a bit antiquated and unsustainable to a postmodern collective that is sorely in need of salvation.

when you've understood your desire to influence others and no longer
have that need, in those moments of clarity - that's when you actually
do influence others

When you deeply understand others, you may no longer have the desire to influence others as the influence is mutually created. We are all essentially strangers to one another. So it makes sense that the ego-self would adhere to that paradigm and thereby formulate ideologies that promote the individual paradigm against a collective engagement with one another. The world sucks, but hey that's ok, cause I got my practices and I can detach from the sucky world into my own little spiritual world.
Dissolving our 'strangeness' requires a depth of engagement that most conceive as exhausting and frightening to the ego-self, yet it is actiually rejuvenating and liberating because both you and the other become free together. I don't advocate detachment, but a deeper level of engagement, for only through such depth of engagement will you understand others and influence will be mutually derived.
The problem with advocating that “it only matters what we do” is that this has the tendency to divorce the self from the actions of the collective and such rampant individualism is what we have now.
We all do want an 'outcome' and that outcome is the age old “peace and love” that we all give lip-service to, but refuse to engage at the level where it can be created.

Thanks Brother Frans!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

MikeS,

What i say is that only the ego decides “good” or “bad”.  Ego - and anything else - is neither good nor bad; it simply is…

You judging me as good isn't wrong or right - it's your ego - and mine - that make it such.  I am just that; you are just that - nothing more or less.

Our desire for collective change is what interferes with change - it's the same all over, just in a different pair of jeans.  We focus on the collective, when the collective is something beyond our control - it becomes a reason for not initiating change in us, not engaging in “right action” (not good or bad - just right for that moment).

You can never understand others deeply if you don't first understand yourself, including your ego, deeply.  Only from that point of deep understanding can you achieve true depth of engagement - by caring deeply for everything yet at the same time “knowing” that you don't know and that the outcome is something completely beyond your control..

Make sense?
Ffrans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Frans,

You judging me as good isn't wrong or right - it's your ego - and mine
- that make it such.  I am just that; you are just that - nothing more
or less.

Oh, so what you're doing is terminating or dissolving all value systems? In other words, we must train the ego to be indifferent? However, I notice below you write, “by caring deeply for everything…” Frans, you're sending mixed messages.

We focus on the collective, when the collective is something beyond our control

Probably. However, life is often beyond our control and if we get sick, we certainly don't blame the collective.

it becomes a reason for not initiating change in us, not engaging in “right action”

Actually, it seems to me the collective becomes the reason for not engaging to initiate change in the collective, thereby divorcing from the collective in seeking change alone or individually. Thus, we seek to play in our own little worlds, ignoring the suffering all around us. We become complacent in our spiritual bypassing.

You can never understand others deeply if you don't first understand yourself, including your ego, deeply.

Ahhh…yes and this is a traditional axiom that I believe causes a great deal of harm collectively. You are not a “you” divorced or separate from the collective, as that from which you extract meaning for which to define your 'self.' You will only understand 'you' by deeply engaging others. There is no “first know your 'self' and then seek to know others. Others created “you” as you created them and you will know your 'self' THROUGH and WITH them. You can attain to no truth separate from others, nor can they encounter truth separate from you. The paradigm of the solitary seeker is no longer sustainable.

by caring deeply for everything yet at the same time “knowing” that you
don't know and that the outcome is something completely beyond your
control.

Yes, it is beyond your 'individual' control. However, together I imagine we will one day “move mountains.” Together we probably do “know” since truth is most likely not available to portions of the whole but only to the whole that is aware of its wholeness. Apportioned truth is not truth at all.

Right?
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

MikeS,

We're getting into the more subtle nuances now. What i say is that in order to care, you don't need any value or belief system - they actually stand in the way of true care, since they impose upon the care.  So, no mixed message, but a more subtle meaning to “caring” (as opposed to “caring for”).

We don't blame the collective..?  Talked to AIDS activists lately, or swine flu panickers?

You speak of spiritual bypassing, but that's not what I mean.  When your take is non-personal it can be all-inclusive, right?  When your seeking to accomplish something by your caring, it becomes personal and exclusionary - that's non-spiritual bypassing I guess :-)

AS long as you are ruled by ego, you are seperate from the collective - not spiritually, but in your actions.  you can only become the collective by understanding your “self” deeply, right?  On this particular subject I feel that we mean to say the same things, we just approach the subject from a different angle.

Make sense?
Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hey Frans!

I'm not sure I grasp your thesis with regard to egoic vs non-egoic “care.” I tend to feel that the ego-self is capable of much good. Yet, it does require transformative effort. I merely suggest that such a transformative effort is not a solitary endeavor, but it will be ego-self acting from such a transformation. Ego cannot transcend ego.

you can only become the collective by understanding your “self” deeply,
right?  On this particular subject I feel that we mean to say the same
things, we just approach the subject from a different angle.

I don't think it's a matter of becoming the collective, but through deeply understanding and engaging with others, you achieve a deeper sense of self. This is the one and the many paradox. I simply state that the paradox is resolved since it is the one in relationship with the many (any other ego will do and numbers are inconsequential).

Our 'shadows' do not emerge or develop in isolation from others, but through engagement with others. Same as Freudian defense mechanisms, since we are defending the psychological self from exposure to others.

Certainly spiritual work on self is valuable and i'm not denigrating that completely. I merely suggest that this work cannot be done in isolation from a world of other egos. Our greatest moments are times shared with others and our worst moments are also through such engagement. So why would we seek to disengage in order to realize something that was developed through engagement?

I go further in claiming that any truth realized in relationship with a spiritual master or teacher is from the collaborative relationship itself and not a product of any conveyance of truth from master to student. The depth of relationship is the intimate truth and is available from anyone for which such depths can be facilitated. The mistaken interpretation, in my opinion, is made when the master is determined as cause of that “awakening' when, in fact, it was there in the collaborative relationship awaiting. It could have been availed if the ego were not so entrenched in this paradigm of how that conveyance take place. Thus, we all are student and master (this is not new and has been said by other more brighter minds than me)

However, you, Christine and others have identified certain points that cause me to review that position since it may not be completely relevant. Yet, for now that's my tentative take on things.

Of course, “subject to change” is my middle name.

Thanks Frans!
mikeS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

lol “work in progress ” is mine:-)

Liz

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hey MikeS,

Just saw a bumper sticker “Mikey Likes It” :-)  What's “it”?

Care for, love for, is all conditional - a poor reflection of care and love?

You may just have nailed it Mike, a deeper sense of self is no different from becoming the collective - a true understanding of self releases the self in the collective - what you would call collective relationship, I think?

The depth of relationship is the intimate truth…

I agree - but this isn't in contradiction to what I said earlier - there is no disengagement from relationship, only from others and self, since both are fictional - pretty subtle stuff again but I feel you grok.  I still feel we are trying to convey a very similar point, which is too subtle for words to convey and we're coming at it from different “backgrounds”…Maybe we'll reach the summit of the same mountain, having climbed different faces of it, eh?

Thanks for listening,
Frans

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Frans,

“It” is anything, since in the commercial, “let mikey try it, he hates everything. He likes it, Hey mikey!” Of course, as everyone knows mikey died from consuming pop rocks and coke.

Maybe we'll reach the summit of the same mountain, having climbed different faces of it, eh?

That seems a very accurate assessment.

However, I would like to delve deeper into some of these new comments. but unfortunately my sciatica is shooting pain from my lower back into my leg requiring very potent drugs to ease my suffering. (ahhh…..). Therefore, any comments I'd make would be rather shallow and possibly plumb stupid.

I willll tri to cccome bak to this tommmmorrown when me mental cappsitiess rettrurunnnnnnnn n  nnn. Haaaaaaaaaahaha,,

goddoodnigghteeee eebeeryonene!!!11!!!11
MIKissssS

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Sweet dreams MikeS!  I've never seen that commercial - did I miss anything good?

F

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

A generation of us grew up on those commercials, Frans :) you had to have been there… but in case you really want to know…

 see here and here

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Thanks Nicole! I'm a bit spoiled that i grew up in The Netherlands with commercials like these..

Frans


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU30H0rkymY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_OR5OW44YE&feature=related

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

:):) Frans!

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Christine, you speak my language, from the heart. That is all I know. I don’t know head stuff the way you do and admit at times it can be intimidating to “post” up in here. You all know so much and I am certainly learning.
 
Heart talk…I can do that…Experience…I got that!
 
Stories to “teach”! That is all know, have you ever asked a Native Elder a question? Or better yet, have you ever received a direct answer from a Native Elder? I just saw your new thread, now this looks like a good one! Perhaps I can pick up more on this in there.
 
Liz, you Princess…I so agree with you and honestly do appreciate that I can feel
like myself with you folks in here, roll around and get dirty.
 
I read mike’s post of poor Isha and laughed, I get what he was saying.
 
I think Isha has a beautiful hat! It is a beautiful ad but I went nowhere beyond
her hat and maybe her glasses, the whole look is pretty cool. Okay I really
like her poncho to. Until now, I had no idea what it was about and honestly
won’t investigate, my loss perhaps. Oh well.
 
Hollywood!
 
Quick story. I have seen a variety of groups visit my home reserve in search of
learning, some have been in great pain and need while others were honestly
curious. For some it was their first time being that close up. For some, I
could see the shock and even the disappointment over come them, as they could
not find the Hollywood Indians running around the rez. The Medicine folk they
came seeking and some so desperate for soon realized that they sneezed, breathed and bled like a human and that not one of us could make it rain. Not much magic in that is there?  I am sure it would be a hard trip down for anyone especially while pissing over a bucket.
 
Let down.
 
I followed all kinds of hats in my time and had my let downs. So what. Some I
earned foolishly and some I earned the hard way. Great stories and great
lessons and wouldn’t take one single of them away.
 
I am sure “Isha” will inspire many, I have no doubt about that!
 
I learned in my Let Downs and surely not implying that this woman is, I learned that we are all human and put our pants on the same, one leg at a time. The wisest words ever given to me by my father! I would hope and desire that Isha finds the humanity in this conversation …if not…than Isha only has a real pretty hat and that be it. I have a good feeling that she would be well to handle this.
 
I picked up a few other things and don’t know who the heck said what now. I tried to get this up early am and ran out of time. Sorry. I see that the fizz is out
on this one but have to throw this in the mix.
 
I liked where Jenny was attempting to bring us. I heard you Jenny! I know how it
can be frustrating to try to add your thoughts in these types of dialogs and
than no one even says, a darn thing back! I have posted essays in these
groups…and just like I said nothing!
 
(Maybe my posts ARE too long! I knew it, I am gonna work on this.)
 
Anyway, I liked what you said because I am Indigenous and honestly, this is where my line of thoughts usually goes back to, what I raised with and today can now say what I believe. In our culture, in everyday living to the larger ceremonial
acts, it is all about balance with our men, women and children. Balance,
balance, balance…!
 
“ I think men who seek the yin and the yang in spiritual matters have a difficult time in finding a comfortable place within the overall spiritual community.”
 
I don’t know about this, I know many Native men and other men in my life who have sought the yin and yang and can very easily find their place within and without the community. When our Native men conduct ceremony as so much of our ceremonies are, they revolve around a “her”. That and this in is our languages as well, which is another scenario all together. Of course, I must now add that not all our men are on this path, they too have forgotten their strength, wisdom and beauty.
 
“I think the nuances that underlie all culture come from women.  Women invented together and gathered closely together to form the tools of drying, weaving, medicine, birthing, story, et al, while the men went out and hunted and conquered and in their moments of leisure became jealous.”
 
Huh? I come from a hunter gathering culture and I am pretty confident to say that I don’t think this happened. Or did I pluck that out of context?
 
“So why look to men to teach it?“
 
Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t.
 
 ”But what about the ancients?  There are loads more male truth transmitters than female. Wazupwidat?”
 
In our communities, I see this as equally available.
 
“Is spirituality a sexist domain similar to many other conventional realms? Are women unaware of sexist spiritual agendas?”
 
Yes we are aware and you will find that we understand this better than any man regarding the parameters of this game. I would offer that perhaps we as women have forgotten our own strength, wisdom and beauty as well. I think as woman, we know our strengths deep within, for we are women after all. Yet for so many of us, we just need to remember this perhaps for ourselves. I believe we will.
 
Our men can do well by opening a space for us to come back into and equally
remembering this.

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

Hi Demim~

”…within the overall spiritual
community.”

You know, I really ought to have phrased that differently.  I was considering more in terms of politico-fundamental religious powers-that-be, which attempt to define the roles of men and women within the social layers.  Men, and women for that matter, who step out of those definitions can meet with adversity and are often marginalized.

“I think the nuances that underlie all culture come from women”

I do think women invented more of the tools and stories and wisdom than they have been allowed to voice or been acknowledged for historically.  Women so directly mirror the Earth and Moon in cycles, have nurtured the social community of men and children since the beginning, spoke the story of the dye and thread, picked up the debris after battle, yet the innate wisdom, story and contribution of women has been far overshadowed by the feats and influence of men.

Question: “Is spirituality a sexist domain similar to many other conventional realms? Are women unaware of sexist spiritual agendas?”
 Reply: Yes we
are aware and you will find that we understand this better than any man
regarding the parameters of this game. I would offer that perhaps we as
women have forgotten our own strength, wisdom and beauty as well. I
think as woman, we know our strengths deep within, for we are women
after all. Yet for so many of us, we just need to remember this perhaps
for ourselves. I believe we will.
 
Our men can do well by opening a space for us to come back into and equally
remembering this.
Perfect!

Blessings :)

Re: "It's The Relationship, Stupid!"

hi Denim and Nahnni

Denim - i hope you do not feel put off by posting by the intellectual sounding musings.  i don't think any of us believe we KNOW too much - i think we are just trying on thoughts and ideas … what seems to make some sense (in language) - in the moment - or not -  in regard to that  deeper inner stirring … bringing it out somehow, trying to express it, to relate to each other in language with it. 

and i like the style of your posts, lengths not being an issue i don't think  - the free roaming thought stream  of “where you are” - it's very natural to me. 

hi Nahnni

  you speak of the innate wisdom of women… which i believe men have too - it is just that perhaps it is covered over with testosterone induced power play … forgeting that this male quality of “tension and doing” is in service WITH the female quality of ” rest and stillness”.  So, the inner life of some people - women perhaps - the inner world - that which is not too attached to thinking - is more intune with the rest and stillness…  and there isn't this extra “edge”, this propulsion into action so much… which is built in to the hormonal makeup of a man.  so perhaps it is harder for men to remember their stillness.

and so for women, for the strong woman - matured with a life time or relations both people, natural world, and ancestral - there is the understanding of her stillness and there is the recognition of stillness in all others.  and there is no need to explain it - or teach it, or project herself as an elder … that neediness toward action - not there…. just solid in herself… an elder just because she is.

for a man - who may have the same experience - perhaps it is the “maleness” - that propensity toward action that makes them the “leader” of ceremony … a teacher perhaps… and when there is action - the taking on of a role - there is the identification of the role - which may appear to become sexist - but i don't think that it what it is… i think ego works with action - which is thoughts and ideas about oneself…  men do this - AND women do this.

i speak of male qualities and female qualities just for the sake of this conversation - but i don't think it is this simple.

but i do think the common thread - a crucial element - is for women and men to remember the stillness - from which beauty and wisdom arise.  then action can arise out of that perhaps - which would be the “base” of our relating to each other, to the natural world, to the ancestral and spiritual plain as we perceive it.

just thinking out loud here.
would appreciate your comments.