Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple

Featuring never-before-seen footage, this documentary delivers a startling new look at the Peoples Temple, headed by preacher Jim Jones who, in 1978, led more than 900 members to Guyana, where he orchestrated a mass suicide via tainted punch. Duration 1:24:04

Transformative power of development: Feedback 2/3

After indulging in a somewhat exaggerated critique of the introductory section, I can now move on into the part which feels very much like something I would enjoy writing, on a good day at least. So, let's move to the second part of Julian Walker's article on transformation. This section is called „Interior Depth“.

The mystery of the inner world becomes available in a way that was simply not possible when we were unwittingly projecting it outward. The magic of the outer world becomes available in a way that was not possible when we were seeing it as a narcissistic extension of ourselves. The sacredness of the real world becomes more apparent in a way that was not possible when we were seeking a different world, a magical world, an otherworldly god, a fantasy dimension of all-good, all-powerful perfection in which to disappear.

This is true, and extremely important. Our critical faculties and the capacity to employ rational in a systematic inquiry is crucial in this step. The naive „I create my reality“ syndrome so prevalent in today's spiritual scene isn't a product of authentic magical thought, in any of its potent expressions, Eastern or Western, but of rampant narcissism made possible by an almost systemic collapse of 20th century intellectual and ethical frameworks holding our reality from falling apart, followed by an erosion of our academic and public-discourse standards. Religious institutions were proven unreliable, and commodification plus bastardization of spirituality was a natural consequence. At the same time, however, an unprecedented situation emerged in that previously esoteric techniques and arcane knowledge have become available to virtually everyone everywhere, and soon could be claimed by anyone anywhere. Specifically, spiritual paths have been presented for the last 40 years in a context of market-inspired offerings, where surfing on the smorgasbord of multiple options everyone is given to choose something that expresses their unique selves, which in the vast majority of cases means expressing their not-so-unique egos (*the eclectic result makes a faithful psychospiritual profile, a portrait and caricature at once, depending from the vantage point). Checks and balances are absent, so anything goes. Teachings have become mere techniques. Arduous initiation has become 1-day workshop at best. Purification of awareness has become a 10-minute guided meditation. But the problem is not in mere quantity. Relaxing the edge has gone too far to completely annihilate the critical faculties of a deeply desacralized eclectic mindset. No rapport, no challenge, no confrontation: "renowned teachers" have become "bestselling authors", somewhat like mail-order brides.

But in order to discover a more genuine sacredness, without „seeking a different world“, a robust existential rationality must be coupled a genuine search for truth beyond one's contractions. Indeed, if spiritual culture becomes/remains just a vestige, a cross-dressing for an inflated affection of magical vulnerability, there's no hope something as „sacredness“ will ever be available. Instead, it will be avoided. In such case, la-la-land of wishcraft remains a promising option. And therapy, of course.

There is no going back. Suffering is real. Injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. Death will happen. And yet life is magnificent, mysterious, complex, beautiful in equal measure to its tragedy, meaninglessness, and cruelty.

Beautiful! No... Going... Back! Key phrase: injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. But most of even serious practitioners remain deaf to this crucial insight, quoting dharma-phrases to defend from what they won't acknowledge. Disenchantment is the key to real magic. Thank you, Julian. What follows is rather straightforward and brilliant in its simplicity.

In fact, it is in the very contrast between evil and nobility, callousness and sensitivity, mediocrity and brilliance, oppression and freedom, that the exquisite fragility and power of the human spirit reveals itself.

Striving. Growing. Being humbled by reality in its harshness. Having no choice but to bow before truth. Fighting for what is good. Being blown open by Beauty.

The interior origin of art, myth, dreams and meaning becomes apparent in all of its splendor and chaos. The activity of a mind that seeks to represent, express, understand, symbolize the dynamics and forces we intuit at play, underlying, inter-weaving the reality we perceive.

We are ready for the leap to the next stage, but only in so far as we have really completed this intense transition and begin to engage the practices that will make transrational meaningful.

Unlike the revolutionary overhaul that occurred from prerational to rational, transrational will not negate rational, rather it will build and expand upon it's solid foundation - it's accurate purchase on inner and outer reality via a deepening relationship to contemplative practice, mind-body integration, intuitive intelligence and even more rigorous dedication to truth, beauty and goodness.

I tend to be less optimistic about rational, in and of itself, serving as "solid foundation" for transrational or even postrational, since they expose inherent limitations and shadows of a rational platform - as to solid foundation, I would opt for a reflective, evolutionary impulse of soulful authenticity - still, perhaps I can go along with this formulation. Specifically, if we really want to grow, not just individually, but also create an authentic spiritual culture as we go, we must move away from morbid vestiges of magical thinking. At this point in our culture, and probably equally in the East, it's much more important to develop a mature existential culture, than relaxing our angst through meditation, or devotion to an idealized tradition/guru/channeled wisdom/whatever. Depending on a variety of motivational factors, meditative techniques can be used for better or worse, like any other artifact - even to truncate development. In fact, meditation mustn't be treated as spiritual viagra. Growing as humans and patiently ripening the growing discomfort of clarity in confronting our dilemma is the real wishfulfilling jewel at this point. The great bliss is the flip side of the way things are now. Meanwhile, catering to the lowest common denominator in the spiritual showbiz, the vulgarity of many offerings is rather appalling.

But this is a difficult passageway - not attempted by many. There are two powerful pulls - one is to remain in the rational realm of what has simple location, what can be expressed in an equation - the other is to want to regress to childhood magic and myth. Both serve a similar purpose - but with different variations.

Remaining in narrow rationalism is often a defensive reaction against having to acknowledge feelings, vulnerability and the non-rational power of creativity, intuition, embodied, experience, love, intimacy, soul-rockin' sex - in short, experience that the ego cannot pretend control over...

This rejects the classic mundane maneuver, shallow and hollow as it is.

Regressing into the previous fascination with literalized magic and myth is often a defense both against personal suffering but also against facing the reality of collective suffering and injustice and taking responsibility for living in the real world on its own terms.

This refutes the actual manifesto of pop-spirituality.

Both strategies are based in a fear of or inability to enter the next stage of growth - i think about this in terms of two variables: trauma and resources. If one has sufficient resources (love, self-esteem, intelligence, education, support etc..) and has either a) a small amount of trauma, or b) has done a lot of interior work to heal and resolve trauma - we are better prepared to move into the genuinely transrational stages of development.

The simple equation here is that the more disadvantageous the trauma/resource ratio is and the greater the concomitant gulf between critical thinking and spiritual longing, the more likely one will be to misperceive a regression to childhood magic and myth as the next stage of development beyond rational.

Good stuff here. A lot of substance. And next, to my favorite, the third section.

> next installment here

Beghe on Beghe the Scientologist

An amuzing interview with Jason Beghe offered by Mark Bunker. 8 parts for a total of 3 hours! Bunker has had problems with his Youtube account, so he moved to Vimeo instead and it seems like a good choice. Here's the first part of Beghe interview. If you find the silly lingo confusing, consult the Scientology® Terminology Online Dictionary. Enjoy!


Scientology: 1/8 Jason Beghe Interview from Mark Bunker on Vimeo.

Habits of Happiness

A video from TED. What is happiness, and how can we all get some? Buddhist monk, photographer and author Matthieu Ricard has devoted his life to these questions, and his answer is influenced by his faith as well as by his scientific turn of mind: We can train our minds in habits of happiness. Interwoven with his talk are stunning photographs of the Himalayas and of his spiritual community. Time 21 min. Enjoy!





*I posted previously a video of a lecture Matthieu Ricard held at Googletech (click here to watch).

Personal DNA

Check your Personal DNA to see "Your true self revealed"... Anyway, it definitely beats tea-leaf reading. It's shallow, quick and based on personality traits (here and here). Does not beat enneagram, nor the Myers-Briggs typology. But then, I'm an advocating leader, right:-) It's also fun to do someone else's profile and let them know how you see them, or ask others to do your profile instead. Once you get a "DNA map", move cursor over any part of the map to learn about the traits. Enjoy!

Features of the Mystic Experience

"...it is necessary to explain five principal features of the mystic experience: (1) intense realness, (2) unusual sensations, (3) unity, (4) ineffability, and (5) trans-sensate phenomena. (...) It is assumed by those who have had a mystic experience, whether induced by years of meditation or by a single dose of LSD, that the truthfulness of the experience is attested to by its sense of realness. The criticism of skeptics is often met with the statement, "You have to experience it yourself and then you will understand." This means that if one has the actual experience he will be convinced by its intense feeling of reality. "I know it was real because it was more real than my talking to you now." But "realness" is not evidence. Indeed, there are many clinical examples of variability in the intensity of the feeling of realness that is not correlated with corresponding variability in the reality. A dream may be so "real" as to carry conviction into the waking state, although its content may be bizarre beyond correspondence to this world or to any other. Psychosis is often preceded or accompanied by a sense that the world is less real than normally, sometimes that it is more real, or has a different reality. The phenomenon of depersonalization demonstrates the potential for an alteration in the sense of the realness of one's own person, although one's evidential self undergoes no change whatsoever. However, in the case of depersonalization, or of de-realization, the distinction between what is external and what is internal is still clear. What changes is the quality of realness attached to those object representations. Thus it appears that (1) the feeling of realness represents a function distinct from that of reality judgment, although they usually operate in synchrony; (2) the feeling of realness is not inherent in sensations, per se; and (3) realness can be considered a quantity function capable of displacement and, therefore, of intensification, reduction, and transfer affecting all varieties of ideational and sensorial contents..."

See the whole paper "Deautomatization and the Mystic Experience" by Arthur J. Deikman. More useful articles to be found at the website.

Yoga for inmates

A prison in Norway has stopped holding yoga classes after it found that instead of calming inmates, they were actually making some more aggressive. Read the story at BBC News.

Carl Gustav Jung

Carl Gustav Jung is featured in the Feb-Apr 2008 issue of WIE that arrived yesterday, along with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in an excellent article by Carter Phipps. The WIE team are doing a great service with this amazing magazine. Back to Jung, here's a link to an anthology of Jung's thought, and below you can have a look at "Matter of Heart", a documentary conceived and written by Suzanne Wagner, made in 1986 by Mark Whitney, featuring interviews with those who knew him and archive footage of Jung. Time 1 hour 45 minutes. Enjoy!

The trap and the dream of freedom

"The Trap" by Adam Curtis, or "What happened to our dreams of freedom" (for info, see detailed entry at Wikipedia, from which descriptions below are taken). On liberty, individual freedoms, illussions, control, and politics. Watch at Google video, links for each of the three programs below. Each program 1 hour. Enjoy!

Episode One entitled "Fuck You Buddy":

In this episode, Curtis examines the rise of game theory during the Cold War and the way in which its mathematical models of human behaviour filtered into economic thought. The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the work of John Nash, who believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly. (...) The episode ends with the suggestion that this mathematically modelled society is run on data—performance targets, quotas, statistics—and that it is these figures combined with the exaggerated belief in human selfishness that has created "a cage" for Western humans. The precise nature of the "cage" is to be discussed in the next episode.

Episode Two entitled "The Lonely Robot":

The second episode reiterated many of the ideas of the first, but developed the theme that the drugs such as Prozac and lists of psychological symptoms which might indicate anxiety or depression were being used to normalise behaviour and make humans behave more predictably, like machines. This was not presented as a conspiracy theory, but as a logical (although unpredicted) outcome of market-driven self-diagnosis by checklist based on symptoms, but not actual causes, discussed in the previous programme. (...) Curtis's narration concludes with the observation that the game theory/free market model is now undergoing interrogation by economists who suspect a more irrational model of behaviour is appropriate and useful. In fact, in formal experiments the only people who behaved exactly according to the mathematical models created by game theory are economists themselves, and psychopaths.

Episode Three entitled "We Will Force You To Be Free" (see comment for alternative links to part three):

The final programme focussed on the concepts of positive and negative liberty introduced in the 1950s by Isaiah Berlin. Curtis briefly explained how negative liberty could be defined as freedom from coercion and positive liberty as the opportunity to strive to fulfill one's potential. The programme began with a description of the Two Concepts of Liberty, reviewing Berlin's opinion that, since it lacked coercion, negative liberty was the 'safer' of the two. Curtis then explained how many political groups who sought their vision of freedom ended up using violence to achieve it. (...) In essence, the programme suggested that following the path of negative liberty to its logical conclusions, as governments have done in the West for the past 50 years, resulted in a society without meaning populated only by selfish automatons, and that there was some value in positive liberty in that it allowed people to strive to better themselves. The closing minutes directly state that if western humans were ever to find their way out of the "trap" described in the series, they would have to realise that Isaiah Berlin was wrong and that not all attempts at creating positive liberty necessarily ended in coercion and tyranny.

Century of Self from BBC

A documentary from BBC by Adam Curtis. Each part 1 hour. (Wiki entry here) See each at Google video, links below.

The Century of the Self episode 1 begins with, Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays. He went from Enrico Caruso's publicist to WW1 propagandist and repackaged propaganda as "public relations". Herbert Hoover applied his ideas to turn Americans into the consumers industry needed. Joseph Goebbels, is shown explaining how Bernays' same ideas were used to turn the Germans into Nazi's.

The Century of the Self episode 2 begins with Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna. Studies of traumatized soldiers in WW2 showed their upbringing made them psychologically vulnerable. Anna Freud popularized the idea that imposing conformity strengthened the ego. Thus leading to the conformity of the 50's.

The Century of the Self episode 3 shows the overthrow of Anna Freud's ideas and reverses them with the idea that it is society that is sick and individuals need to free themselves of it. Thus the counter culture and the self actualization movement. Industry no longer wanted to make standard products, they married their new products with expressing individuality. Maslow's hierarchy of needs provided a model for this and was used to elect Ronald Reagan.

The Century of the Self episode 4 shows how the public had become consumers of politics in the same way they had earlier become consumers of products. Focus groups determine policy, first for the Right, and then, to survive, for the Left, especially, Bill, Hillary, and Tony Blair.

Thanks to Daily Kos.

Wilber on Shadow

'...One of the things that's great about shadow work is it doesn't just have you say, feel into your feelings, get in touch with feelings, how do you feel about it, etc. It actually takes the opposite of how you feel and says “OK, feel that.” Because that's pretty much what your shadow is, is the opposite of what you're consciously aware of. So as I say, using the monster example again, if you are out of touch with your aggression, your anger - and, incidentally, for Buddhists to say, “well, you're never supposed to feel anger,” the point it, well, if you're unconsciously feeling it, you have to consciously feel it first, and then you can try to transcend it or transmute it - but for you to just go around saying, “I'm not going to feel anger now,” that just seals your repression. So the worst possible thing you can do if you have repressed negatives like anger or aggression is to get caught up in one of those practices that say that aggression is the root of all evil because your shadow loves that kind of stuff.

So what you do then is: the monster shows up in your dream, your projected anger shows up in your dream as this monster that's trying to attack you, and what you feel is fear; so we don't say get in touch with your fear - I mean you can if you want to, but it's an inauthentic emotion. [laughs] We say identify with the monster, feel the monster, now what does the monster want to say? The monster is not afraid of you, I assure you. [laughs] You're not going to feel fear, you're going to feel, “I hate you so much I want to kill you” or “I'm so angry at you I could rip your head off” or something like that. So that's the way that you can - to some degree, on your own, and at least as a sort of introduction/initiation into it - you can get a sense of your shadow, because it's really helping you feel almost the opposite of what you think you're feeling. Like I say, just feeling your feelings and getting in touch with your feelings and all that, that won't get you in touch with your shadow, because your shadow is the opposite of what you feel, and that's just a pretty good definition of what the shadow is - the opposite of what you're consciously feeling....'

From a transcript of a recent conference call with Ken Wilber. Transcribed by Arthur Gillard. Thanks to Julian for heads up. Read the whole piece here (a lot more in the transcript, not limited to shadow).

AND, there's a free audio where Ken is asked "How would you define what you do?" Listen to find out what he answers. To download go here.

Faith and Reality

The always inspiring Father Thomas Keating speaks in this excerpt from a discussion with Ken Wilber. Father Thomas addresses the issues of Faith, necessity of religion, the false self, love as motivation, spiritual and psychological maturity etc. Ken Wilber then replies with several important points on states and stages. And then Father Thomas returns, quote, "The contemplative practices, of themselves, I think, make one vulnerable to the unconscious..." Have a look and enjoy.

Reflections of a contemporary yogi

Julian Walker writes:

...My young man insistence that everything could be cured by meditation or yoga or just dropping the ego was being slowly replaced by not only a full spectrum model that acknowledged that different practices and therapies were appropriate to different issues, but that there was also a series of developmental stages that had to be traversed by every human being AND that all of this could be situated on a four quadrant map of reality that made extraordinary sense. I understood now (for example) that some kinds of meditation would make trauma survivors dissociate from their felt experience even further rather than actually providing an opportunity to heal and integrate. Also, spiritual experiences were available to all - regardless of their stage of development, but that those experiences would be interpreted in predictable ways depending on that stage of development and the cultural context within which it was occurring. Wow. I understood that the Upper Right empirical perspective on depression was of great importance and that some people really did benefit from medication - that there needn't be a war between Prozac and practice, between medication and meditation...

Read the whole article.

Lacking leadership, lacking conceptuality

The third and final part of the conversation between Vincent Thorn, Daniel Ingram, and yours truly is online! Listen to "Lacking leadership, lacking conceptuality" at Buddhistgeeks. Time 16:40

Get Unstuck!

Buddhistgeeks.com brings the second part of discussion with Vincent Horn, Daniel Ingram and yours truly as we "continue to explore the territory of meditation and psychology, discussing the mastery of meditation techniques, and touch on how people can get unstuck if they are lost in the content and stories of their minds." Also, first part is here.

Online at Buddhist Geeks

Daniel Ingram, Vincent Horn and yours truly have had a zippy chat on the subject of entrances and hindrances to the practice of meditation that can lead to actual results - liberation and awakening - as laid out in teachings of all major lineages. The first part is online: "Croatia, Alabama, and Colorado Collide!" Listen to the podcast and stay tuned at Buddhist Geeks, link here.

On Ego

UPDATE: this video is no longer available on youtube, so here's a link to myspace.tv where you can watch the same discussion.

Andrew Cohen with Ken Wilber, or "The Guru & the Pandit", live in Denver. In this clip, they discuss the notion of ego as it is used in different contexts. Implicitly, they confirm one of points I was making in my post "On Being and Becoming", also starring Andrew Cohen, namely that "ego" is being used in a wrong and confusing way, creating, as Wilber himself remarks in this clip, "a semantic mess". As the participant asking the question makes clear, "egolessness" is an unfortunate way of conceptualizing the nondual, whether from a pre- or a post-realization perspective. And, "ego is becoming synonymous with the shadow"? What is that? In short, a mess.

This mess, however, doesn't stop many teachers (including Cohen) from using the notion in very conflicting ways, which creates an unclarity, and an ambiguousness, definitely not helpful for an audience and a public that, first of all, need to come to terms with their own egos, strenghten their egos, heal their fractures, and overcome their self-obsessions. Then, may I insist, only then can we approach together, in a culture of authentic insight and understanding, not ambiguity, the question of self-contraction which indeed, to quote KW again, "goes all the way up". I'm confident that this is an essential step in creating a truly post-rational spiritual discourse, wherein basic distinctions must be stated clearly and used consistently (the rational level), in order to be dissolved in some higher, wider and deeper perspective. This seems to be true in both traditional sense (uproting the self-contraction to realize radical spaciousness) and in the developmental sense. Both aspects depend on clarity in distinguishing between paradox and ambiguity. What do you think?

On Being and Becoming

Or, on emptiness and appearances, on Suchness and dependent arisings... Here Andrew Cohen speaks of the need to update the notion of enlightenment, a notion that's been around for several thousand years as "awakening to the Unborn" or something to that effect, and recognize the evolutionary drive inherent in the very fabric of our relative being. Recognize, in other words, that samsara is not just circular, that there's an eros and a telos to that circularity, namely growing complexity and further perspectives. Buddhist masters may have been talking of Wisdom and Compassion, but since we've become aware of evolution at all levels from biology to consciousness, we cannot pretend that never happened, and there's a fresh perspective available in the way we understand and practice "Compassion", namely, as passsion for evolving together, not just helping others to be saved from the dreadful existence in samsara. Indeed, an evolving samsara is not that dreadful - or, it's just become potentially dreadful in yet another way - since conscious evolution is now not only possible, but imperative. Looking the other way won't make it go away. But that's my take on it, looking from within my own lineage, and I believe each wisdom tradition has the capacity to evolve a mature post/modern expression giving due emphasis to evolution and multi-perspectival thought. At present, however, most traditions, as well as most popular "contemporary" spiritual teachers, are effectively discouraging their students from doing just that.

The person asking the question is obviously lost in a one-step approach to awakening, and Andrew does him a great service by suggesting a two-step framework, wherein an awakened return to time and manifestation may complement the first step of dropping into the Ground. I would suggest, however, that another step is necessary before even the first step is made, namely, developing a wise and constructive relationship to self, small "s", the conditional self that Andrew keeps calling ego, as many teachers wrongly do, apparently for no reason whatsoever. Explaining that such "ego" is the treacherous infatuation with illusion is, again, recreating what is missing in the bare relative/absolute approach, so typical for premodern spirituality: a potent way of not just being, but going onward in this world, with this world.

Also, you don't need to love or even like Andrew Cohen to appreciate some of significant points he makes. Still, awakening to the unborn, not just for a moment, remains a challenge for anyone interested in "enlightenment", evolutionary or not. Making fun of "Om" won't help either. Zen master mentioned in the talk is not just laughing at your illusions, but also at your attempt to escape the flow of time, so Andrew gives his audience only a partial meaning of that guffaw, mimicking it with a giggle. As some Zenists would rightly argue, "You have to say something!" Also, in other profound/esoteric traditions, the flow of time is given due respect as an equally important half of reality, as a gesture of the Unborn, but first you better awaken to the Unborn, and not just for a moment. Then, find the right way of expressing this realization in every thought, word, and deed, in accordance with your context, and the context is today - yes, yes - evolutionary to the core. So, listening to Andrew Cohen usually leaves me with a certain aftertaste, as if an opportunity is squandered to really make a good case for a post-metaphysical spirituality. But he does use a dual mandala, and that's simply too endearing for my taste... Duration 27:23

Some discussion with Bruce Alderman is available at the zaadz cross-post.

Derrida on Fear & Writing

Psychologization of esoterica

Taken from a comment in a larger discussion link here

My understanding of all this is unavoidably influenced by my practice and study, which is Buddhist. As I did in the original post, I will avoid dharma-lingo, however the distinction of categories, apart from those terms borrowed from integral/kw, will again be informed by such practice and study. I'm pretty sure the same analysis can be made using other doctrinal underpinnings.

Just a scrap:

• psychologizing esoteric stuff means, obviously, translating into existing psychological terminology (note: primarily it's the psychology of the ego) something that goes beyond the scope of such psychology;

• but especially I refer to translating some very authentic esoteric principles or practices or truths etc. into the language and scope of the newage lore and pop-psychology;

• first and foremost, to make things clearer, let us recall the notions of four natural states (gross awareness, subtle awareness, very subtle awareness, foundational awareness), and the three depths of frontal personality, deeper psyche and witness.

• the frontal personality works it's way through conventional stages of development, and at each of these stages the four natural states will be accesible at all times, though usually gross awareness will prevail in waking states, subtle awareness will prevail in dreaming, and very subtle awareness will prevail in dreamless sleep while foundational awareness is incomparable as to prevailance, it being just the facts of limpidity, unimpeded feelingness (some would say bliss) and fundamental non-conceptuality (i.e. isness); in deep sleep (and other similar states), the gross and subtle appearances are non-arising, so the very subtle appearance comes ot the fore; in dreaming (and other similar states) only the gross appearance is non-arising, which allows the subtle appearances to veil the very subtle ones; just like that, in waking the gross appearances are in full display, veiling usually the subtle and the very subtle to a large extent; the foundational awareness, however, is never hidden by appearances;

• also the three depths will exist in continuity, as (1) that which looks outward, (2) that which looks inward, and (3) that which is simply aware; i.e. the three depths may change their basic denotation if and when deeper development takes place;

• let's have a natural allegory for illustration: there's the wave, the ocean, and the wetness; wave is like frontal personality, ocean like deeper psyche, and wetness is like witness. (note the very important “like”, which is the entrance into the allegory; you may always use that door to get out, and reenter; several following sentences are within the allegory)

• a wave is local, simple and focal/directional; the ocean is spacious, complex and multifocal/omnidirectional; wetness is simultaneously local and spacious, simple and complex, and also obivous and paradoxical;

• so we have three structures here, deeply inter-related, none existent quite on it's own, always mutually non-exclusive, however quite distinct. Now, attributing wetness to the ocean and attributing oceanity to wave is not a mistake in itself, and that's first thing newage does, known also as a descending movement. However, the shuffle trick newage does then, is to suddenly recognize this descending movement as the nondual. Because, the wave is wet, isn't it? So wetness is to be treated as local, simple and focal/directional. and this local, simple and focal wetness is the source of the oceanic reality (that oceanic reality indeed resonating in every drop of the wave, as the wetness allows unboundedness). The wave may indeed feel the ocean within itself (the minuscule portion of the ocean delimited by one wave's constantly changing form). And the wave may very well and to some exten correctly feel itself as wetness. And here I part ways from newage, and from personal spiritualities, and especially from psycho-spiritual theories, all of them being wave-born, wave-like and wave-bound.

• without bringing oneself to the level of foundational awareness, which is sheer cognizance, clarity and understanding, it is quite impossible to discern the wave from the ocean, or the ocean from the wetness, and to recognize all that in a teardrop. Instead, one develops a caricature of clarity, by misunderstanding esoteric concepts (that are properly transmitted in context of gradual practice and realization) and making them available in slightly broken english to people with zero mind-training, and then garnishing it all with “love”, “forgiveness”, and “self-empowerment”.

• so far I have used allegory, but this actually translates into many particular psychological lies, illusions and delusions, originated and perpetuated by the newage & pop-psychology (though some of their critics are not necessarily immune, ).

• in short, it's attributing the life of witness and the deeper psyche to the frontal personality, because of never understanding what That in the famous “you are That” meant;

• again, it's attributing the entitiness, qualities and functions/actions of the greater depth to the surface;

• we see Pavlina and the Secret doing this mistake and calling it “subjective reality”, as if their delusion was a valid partial truth;

• only flatlanders can do that without blinking;

• only psychotic people can manipulate reality with their thoughts;

• it is my contention that many have done the same fundamental mistake, just by choosing another wave to their liking, as surfers do;

• some have here used rigged philosophy to do that;

• the spiritual culture depends on authentic wisdom, which is a direct perception not by eye, or mind or even soul, but perception by sheer understanding (in buddhist terms, prajna, which is a function of foundational awareness) through any of those organs; by any other name, it's a realization, a “permanent adaptation” to something inherent, not an acquisition; but in absence of such in our midst, or in absence of our capacity to recognize such in our midst, we must rely on testimonies of known realizers and compare those to our experience and sound judgement;

Endnote
The terms I have used above, like witness or awareness, have a very precise meaning, and all have a signified/referent to be ascertained experientially, and to be checked and discussed in one's own spiritual culture to only then attain to a linguistic adequacy. These are not things to be discussed if one has not ascertained the referents accurately beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a conceptual fabrication.

Beyond the person?

Taken from a comment in a larger discussion link here

“Beyond the person”. Person is shorthand for conventional identity, i.e. being identified with one's stories about what this separate self-sense is as opposed to it's nature of being a product of biogaphical conditioning. These stories are negative/positive type of scenarios, “i'm a good person as opposed to…” or at other times “i'm a bad person as opposed to…” there's always a reference to an opposition, an expectation, a false standard extraneous to the separate self-sense itself. Because of this unobserved otherness being crucial to the meaning of the story, the narrative itself is a source of fear, since one cannot control the extraneous element. (this is one way putting it, and i'm not sure it's consonant to conventions of contemporary psychological science in any of the schools)

Where there's fear related to being good, there's guilt. However, this (the persona with a shadow) is a stage-appropriate phase in development, not to be avoided before it is established, as what preceeds it is even more constricted. To cut a long story short, when repressed stuff gets integrated, we have a relatively healthy ego (a more-subtle-mental developmental construct), and when bodily sensations are well integrated, we have what had been called a centaur (an existentially vital, death-aware separate self-sense). This is all frontal development I have subsumed in my comment as “a person”, or conventional identity.

On a deeper level, however, irrespective of frontal development, there's the deeper psyche, the higher self, in more traditional terms - the soul. And beyond the soul is the “witness”, a formless spaciousness, very subtle, technically still relative.

The deeper psyche (also called the authentic self by some, but these terms get easily confusing) is beyond the person in at least two ways. First, it is not explicitly constrained by the biographical conditioning. / see graph here / It lives a quasi-independent life, at least until the person reaches the summit of available frontal development, which is a rather complex concept determined by individual, cultural and environmental factors. In this first sense, the soul is “beyond” the person.

In another sense, it is “beyond” because soul-work, when initiated prior to the frontal development reaching an optimum, tends to negate the frontal identity, as the fundamental meaning of “soul” is openness to and apprehension of vast spacio-temporal relations, and trans-biographical meanings and purposes - i.e. the soul presumes all existential knowledge, finds confirmation in physical death etc. therefore being of some threat to the frontal structure prone to defy the existence of some such “thing”. But most importantly, the soul cannot be an object of the frontal self-sense, which can only apprehend symbols of it or be drowned in torment if unwanted exposure would occur. Many methods of meditative development are expressly designed to enable experience of the subtle/soul identity and realm in a controled, induced manner. Enough said.

Back to responsibility and “respons-ability”. A centauric ethos is based on responsibility for all one's bodymind states (this is what colloquials usually mean by experiences), including reactions, unconscious intentionality etc. and is not based on guilt, but rather on acceptance, recognition and, if necessary - remorse. Basically, as opposed to guilt, remorse feeds into resolution to work on one's growth and awareness.

Being a character, does not imply having a character. The same is true of conscience and responsibility. Feeling guilt actually means not being able to take responsibility, either generally or in particular circumstances. All this has to do with integrity, and authority, “being an author” (of which original meaning see here an introductory presentation, and an elaboration through Weber's understanding concerning positive and negative potentials of it).

But deep responsibility, to which I was refering if I remember well, goes even beyond that, because it's a profoundly transformative power coming from beyond the relatively healthy personal domain. It may emerge sometimes in an unprepared or ill-prepared individual. It's a commitment, and a humility, to do our best and live in accordance with that which is beyond and therefore stretches our capacities to their furthest limits (in both sense of “beyond” I mentioned previously). This often requires personal sacrifice, that ought to be balanced with some kick-ass personal maintenance.;-) There's a state-training component to all this, obviously, but also a structure-stage appropriate translation - i.e. interpretation and application - at least equally important.