Sally was just the person I needed to hear today. Something like her Lady of Guadeloupe experience. Thank you both so much for what you offer to us all
Rick, you're one of the coolest dudes I've heard. Period. Sally occurs to me as insightful, wise and concise and I look forward to check out her audiobook.
The spiritual ideas that I, personally, think are quite useful and important to discuss: 1. Is consciousness really continuous - considering it disappears under general anesthesia? 2. Is there a real individual entity - self, soul - or, is the idea of individual self just an error of thinking? 3. Is there really a free will - or, is free will just an illusion? 4. If the answer to the above three are... ...no... and if one truly believes that these don't exist, can ego truly survive? 5. Without an underlying belief in the self (or soul or ego) (and free will)... ...can suffering exist? 6. Without a belief in the self (or soul or ego) (and free will)... can 'un enlightenment' exist? 7. If there is really no individual self and if that knowledge is clearly established - who is left to get 'enlightened' or... 'un enlightened'... or to... 'suffer'?
Thanks as always Rick. It seemed like Sally wanted to get into more discussion RE Shakti/Kundalini, but the discussion continued to steer in an alternate direction. Was this just my hope/maybe I'm reading into it too much? It seems that more people steer out of Kundalini discussion as opposed to steering into it...on this channel and elsewhere. Love the show every week, Thanks!
I was looking forward to little more discussion on Kundalini. I think discussion about the nature of consciousness and the ultimate reality is interesting, but, not that useful or productive. The answer has to come from science... ...even if it never comes. Personally, I don't find discussion on celestial beings, devas necessary or useful. However, I realize that many others watch these interviews. Can others find it useful? In what way, for what purpose - I have no idea. In/after my meditation... ...sometimes I feel as if my entire body is filled with stars/light particles, sometimes, as if the entire body is all dark, sometimes, as if it is highly charged space, sometimes, as if the body doesn't exist. Does it mean anything? I guess... ...not. Is seeing celestial body something different?
Kia ora Rick, thank you for sharing another great interview! I heard alot of similar ideas that are discussed by Stephen Davis in his series of workshops on The Holographic Universe - holographicuniverseworkshops.com/. Keep up the awesome work! - www.osg.kiwi/share-your-experiences/the-holographic-universe
*Won't rate this one* (for reasons see below) _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_ I want to like this woman as she is really a nice person to talk to. Hard to say why that is as she might have been that way before she started on her path. Yet, there are certain things she said that made me go "Oh no, not that gullibility towards hindu lore again !" You know, why - if human activity is destructive and already accounts for the destruction it produces - do we need a Kali goddess to be destructive on top of that to show us that we are destructive (that was Sally's explanation) by producing the very same destruction that was already accounted for by ourselves ??? That seems to me exactly the kind of medieval delirious fantasizing that usually characterizes pre-rational mythological thinking. That naivety seems to extend to the meanwhile pretty much debunked Ken Wilber, and it seems Sally (and Rick !) are two remaining survivors of a perennialist breed originating in the 50s and 60s who still hope to find a true narrative of the cosmos and so simply graft whatever they can from ancient and Wilberian lore onto phenomena instead of critically investigating if there are not pretty good refutations of those lores. That said, I am certainly not claiming that subtle phenomena and beings do not exist. Just that lore is no great help in getting to the bottom of this. Would be more interesting to hear 50 interviews more with Harri Aalto and Francis Bennett about this. And I wish you could interview Sri Aurobindo. _About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Sally was just the person I needed to hear today. Something like her Lady of Guadeloupe experience. Thank you both so much for what you offer to us all
Rick, you're one of the coolest dudes I've heard. Period. Sally occurs to me as insightful, wise and concise and I look forward to check out her audiobook.
The spiritual ideas that I, personally, think are quite useful and important to discuss:
1. Is consciousness really continuous - considering it disappears under general anesthesia?
2. Is there a real individual entity - self, soul - or, is the idea of individual self just an error of thinking?
3. Is there really a free will - or, is free will just an illusion?
4. If the answer to the above three are... ...no... and if one truly believes that these don't exist, can ego truly survive?
5. Without an underlying belief in the self (or soul or ego) (and free will)... ...can suffering exist?
6. Without a belief in the self (or soul or ego) (and free will)... can 'un enlightenment' exist?
7. If there is really no individual self and if that knowledge is clearly established - who is left to get 'enlightened' or... 'un enlightened'... or to... 'suffer'?
The individual entity is the reflection of the self in the individual mind. How can the light fail to see itself as light?
Thanks as always Rick.
It seemed like Sally wanted to get into more discussion RE Shakti/Kundalini, but the discussion continued to steer in an alternate direction. Was this just my hope/maybe I'm reading into it too much?
It seems that more people steer out of Kundalini discussion as opposed to steering into it...on this channel and elsewhere.
Love the show every week, Thanks!
Thank you
Dennis Moorby sounds like an interesting guest to interview.
Thanks for sharing - assistance it is for opening MY can of worms - A hilarious adventure. Thanks again. cheers
Thank you for sharing Sally Kempton. Namaskaram
www.ravawc.org - The World's 1st Ecash Charity
www.darkcointalk.org - Dash development site
There's no one inside choosing. This is ego acting as doer, nah, it's just a happening.
Are you ready for the ultimate truth about life and death? Check it out by reading The Present at TruthContest♣Com
I was looking forward to little more discussion on Kundalini.
I think discussion about the nature of consciousness and the ultimate reality is interesting, but, not that useful or productive. The answer has to come from science... ...even if it never comes.
Personally, I don't find discussion on celestial beings, devas necessary or useful. However, I realize that many others watch these interviews. Can others find it useful? In what way, for what purpose - I have no idea.
In/after my meditation... ...sometimes I feel as if my entire body is filled with stars/light particles, sometimes, as if the entire body is all dark, sometimes, as if it is highly charged space, sometimes, as if the body doesn't exist. Does it mean anything? I guess... ...not. Is seeing celestial body something different?
Kia ora Rick, thank you for sharing another great interview! I heard alot of similar ideas that are discussed by Stephen Davis in his series of workshops on The Holographic Universe - holographicuniverseworkshops.com/. Keep up the awesome work! - www.osg.kiwi/share-your-experiences/the-holographic-universe
*Won't rate this one* (for reasons see below) _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_
I want to like this woman as she is really a nice person to talk to. Hard to say why that is as she might have been that way before she started on her path. Yet, there are certain things she said that made me go "Oh no, not that gullibility towards hindu lore again !" You know, why - if human activity is destructive and already accounts for the destruction it produces - do we need a Kali goddess to be destructive on top of that to show us that we are destructive (that was Sally's explanation) by producing the very same destruction that was already accounted for by ourselves ??? That seems to me exactly the kind of medieval delirious fantasizing that usually characterizes pre-rational mythological thinking. That naivety seems to extend to the meanwhile pretty much debunked Ken Wilber, and it seems Sally (and Rick !) are two remaining survivors of a perennialist breed originating in the 50s and 60s who still hope to find a true narrative of the cosmos and so simply graft whatever they can from ancient and Wilberian lore onto phenomena instead of critically investigating if there are not pretty good refutations of those lores.
That said, I am certainly not claiming that subtle phenomena and beings do not exist. Just that lore is no great help in getting to the bottom of this. Would be more interesting to hear 50 interviews more with Harri Aalto and Francis Bennett about this. And I wish you could interview Sri Aurobindo.
_About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._
*General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Rick please stop shoe-horning Leisha Vidya in to every interview, it's really getting old!
Good advice. Thanks. I forget how often I mention certain things. I'm sure there are others.
Rick Archer A general quota on Gita quotes, perhaps, too? ;)