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

Have no idea jiggerj.

Originally posted by Angle
Out of all the avatars we adore, there must be one lazy fck.

A few minutes ago you wrote:

Originally posted by Angle
Jesus is /_0rd

Which happens to be true BTW...

BUT your avatar contains the Hindu symbol of the absolute.

Am the only one here going...

I thought is resembled 'eternity' and God.

reply to post by Angle

Thanks for clearing that up...

It makes sense, I was just curious.

Now I feel stupid for even bringing it up.

You have my sincere apologies.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Mt 23; 12: For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be

3 different replies to 3 dif posters:
reply to post by Def Youth

You compare yourself to Jesus and Buddha and ask why people think you're pretentious and egotistical?

I didn't compare myself to them, but said that I've experienced certain states that they both discussed. More assumption, bravo for proving my point.

Really? You're right, you're not egotistical. You're delusional. Meditate on that, grasshopper.

Prove it, besides opinion, assumption, & projection.


reply to post by openlocks

That is why. You say "I am not any different then you" then say "I am different then you because......

Spiritual experiences are just experiences, as all are. Now go watch some U.G. Krishnamurti.

Because there is a difference between a brain surgeon and a floor sweeper (on relative level). You wouldn't go to the sweeper if you need an operation. At same time, there is no difference between the 2 in terms human body, soul, relationship to Absolute.

I like Krishnamurti, however have come to realize, that many people in the nondual circle, who permanently merge with the absolute, didn't realize the details and significance of how it happened, and so, (Like Sailor Bob) they just keep repeating over and over again that "there's nothing you can do, as you already are that.". This creates all sort of spiritual issues keeping people stuck, sometimes for decades, in a non-realizable head scratching koan.

I prefer Nisargadata and R. Maharshi in the extent that they at least give some practical doable advice. Hold on to the "I thought" to merge with the source of thought, Aware of awareness, let go of the the thought that you are the body. But that's just me.


reply to post by jiggerj

Okay, then YOU be factual. No more trying to bolster your argument by trying to disassemble mine, which is why all you believers in fantasy fail at debates. Where are your FACTS?

Is subjective experience fact? Answer this 1st, because it is in this realm that you can have your proof.

No more of, information in DNA proves an intelligent designer. It DOESN'T! SHOW us the creator or you prove nothing!

The God your looking for is already everywhere, inherently in everything, also inside of you. Your like a radio tuned into an A.M. band talk show ...to see God you have to change the dial so to speak.

In the 1700's it was also believed that a god existed. Now those believers can - SHOW NOTHING!!! There's STILL no god to show that they were right.

If your looking for some OT bearded dude on a cloud in the sky, good luck with that.

So, now it's in the quantum world, huh? Where will it be in a thousand years? In Hoboken, New Jersey???? Who'da thunk?!

.
Gos is inherently linked universally in the majority of the human psyche. As our scientific knowledge base changes, people will look to the new findings to see if they can describe God. The first time the Atom was proposed was by a mystic named Kanada 2,500 years ago!!!! Who's catching up to who? Especially in regards to people discussing experiencing an Absolute Oneness/Beingness. Personally I have some legit arguments for Quantum God theory ..but that's another thread.

'Why not" doesn't prove or confirm anything!!!! Is there death and plagues and crime in heaven? Well, we have that here, so why not? It's total garbage.

well go see for yourself!! There are manuals/blueprints that show to have your consciousness leave the body and investigate the spiritual realms. So go see for yourself. Or has your atheism created a skepticism that has you living in a box?

There is no such thing as pure awareness. It can't happen. In this awareness, where is your memory stored? What synaptic gaps fire that brings memories, knowledge and reasoning together for you to formulate thought? What you describe is like having a computer with nothing in it: no wires, no CPU, no sound card... Just an empty case that can function quite well, huh? Come on.

There are great minds, PHD's, embracing now the idea that consciousness is non-local. You speak from ideas and theories, not from direct experience.

No proof huh? Again and again and again. Never a sliver of proof.

as an ex-atheist materialist, the one thing that put a crack in the box I was living in, was Buddha's invitation to see for myself if what he said is true as direct experience, not ideas & theories.

I would LOVE to ask NASA to shoot something to the moon and never tell anyone so these foolish people can project themselves

already happened w/ NDE's, the souls seeing factual details that were in other rooms.

The comic book and sci-fi culture/mythos has framed mystics in terms of 'mutants' and 'superheroes'.

Tabloids and pseudo-skeptic activism has conditioned people to marginalize mystics...indeed very very few people actually know what mysticism really means. The word has been too distorted by common usage and activism and time.

So the claims of mystics are filtered through comics and tabloids before they are recieved by people. As a result they can't stop and critically think about it. They just react with unthinking assumptions as dictated by their conditioning.

reply to post by BlueMule
You'll probably enjoy this interview of Chris Knowles (Secret Sun) by Mike Clelland.

It covers similar ideas about where the themes in sci-fi films and comics might come from. I enjoyed listening to it and have maybe half left to go.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Yeah thanks I peek in on the Secret Sun every once in a while. Have you read any Kripal?

Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal

Another book that I think sheds an essential light on the issue is:

The Trickster and the Paranormal

reply to post by Shoujikina

...They don't need to draw attention to their experience(s), they don't draw attention to themselves and list their 'achievements' like some sort of pseudo-spiritual-materialistic resumé...

in this quoted scathing critique of the OP, we find an answer to his question:

"Shoujikina" speaks, by context, as someone who knows the thoughts and behaviors of the enlightened one. an obvious fallacy if there ever was one! tell us, dear Sh., how is it that you have come to know such things? if you answer that you, yourself, are a "knower", then your vanity is worse.

but even better, if you answer that this is what you imagine enlightenment to be, then you are a fraud! the impure as a voice for the pure!

your response, Sh., is all too common. while it might seem that boastfulness is unbecoming of a soul at peace, that soul is fully aware of the trappings of boastfulness upon souls whom are NOT at peace, and might probably consider it a valid expression given appropriate context.


who are YOU to speak?

there is a predictable cycle of commentary surrounding claims of mystical achievement which is not unlike the left/right debate in politics.

forgive my longwindedness. this is an important argument.

the liberal mind is convinced that there is no idealogical hierarchicy. this is because the liberated has freed himself from the power structures that have been the cause of such obvious harm to himself and humanity in general. ironically, this person has placed himself above those damaging power structures. "liberals" are often called out on this in discussion, to the amusement of all. (re: pretentious)

to their credit, the liberal pov ("all men are created equal"), represents the first moment in an individuals development at which they are able to see, for themself, the "bigger picture". to the discomfort of the conventional-minded, their liberation represents a perspective which is, objectively, "higher" than their own.

as with any "higher" perspective, it is validated by the nearly-visceral sensation of looking downward upon the mountain-path and exclaiming, "hey! I was THERE!". the association of "egotistical", "looking down one's nose", etc., is an unfortunate ambiguity in the language. acknowledging one's own "higher perspective" is NOT ego driven.


the true folly of the early stages of "ascension" is that the traveler cannot see that their own path ahead climbs steeply (orthoganally!) forward.


there is a long, long, long way yet to go.

In the future, all peoples will cast out their dusty religious books, for ATS is filled with "truly enlightened beings". Fortunately no one is pretentious though so it's still quite underground. Gotta love indie religions.

Originally posted by PurpleVortex
Thank you for starting this thread because this issue needs to be addressed in some form. There is a certain individual in our ATS community who I believe is paid to DEBUNK peoples personal spiritual experiences. If one doesn't have a clue of who I'm speaking of then one needs to be more aware of what is going on in our community and be more attentive. I always hold myself back from commenting to this individual for the sake of T&C because I personally had enough.

Some people will NEVER comprehend spiritual experiences because they are too much of a left brained logic people. It takes certain amount of effort, dedication and overall belief to step away from ones mundane "reality" to a more "mystical" and "spiritual" realities and thus experience it. A swimming fish has no clue what is happening outside of the ocean life, just the same way these people have no clue about spiritual experiences until they put their logic brain aside and step into another reality. I personally choose not to share my spiritual experiences here for these same reasons. I believe it and that is enough.

Gosh, I wonder who this demon is?




Seriously, though, you each are referring to experiences that you've had, or continue to have, and while these experiences may be very real to you, the truth is that experience is not an accurate measure of what is real. The human mind is free of the constraints that the rest of physical reality adheres to by default. In other words, you can imagine whatever you're capable of imagining, but reality is not capable of being anything other than what it's become as a direct result of all that's become before its unique instant of manifestation.

The issue is the impact of residual information and how it establishes contextual precedence as it collects with each instant of "now" that has just moved into the rear view mirror. The governing principles of reality are defined and enforced by this contextual precedence, and the only reason that you can post anything on this forum is because human "left brained logic people" have figured out this rock solid fact and have learned how to leverage it in ways that have given us the technologies that we have today. Computer circuitry is just the latest in a very long line of achievements that have been based on reality that can't be experienced, but that exists nonetheless.

As far as defining reality based on individual, or group, experience, how many cult members tragedies, delusion-driven murders, religious crimes against humanity and fraudulent end-of-the-world announcements does it take to make the case that experiences are not reliable evidence of that which does in fact exist beyond the mind of the experiencer? You do know that each suicide bomber firmly believes that his/her experience of God's righteous will is definite proof that detonating that vest is a holy act that will bring honor and reward to him/ her. Right? But, what do you honestly believe about that person's own experience of the revelation of God's righteous will? Is it as accurate as your own experience of what is true and possibly divine in nature? And if not, then what is the dependable and universal determinant that you've relied upon to ensure that your experience is more authentic than the experience that the suicide bomber (who definitely put his money where his mouth was) had? And why is it wrong - or evil - to question the validity of a powerful experience, when so much tragedy - over so many centuries - has been initiated by powerful human experiences and the direct response to those experiences?

You can hate the fact that someone like me challenges you, and that's fair. But it might be helpful to realize that such a challenge is not based on ego or hatred of whatever it is that you feel these experiences have given to you and the life you've worked hard to develop. It might be a lot more accurate that this sort of challenge is based on concern for what has become a very well established trend of negative results emerging from deeply rooted faith in that which is solely based on a person's experience. Yes, there are many more results of abiding faith that are wonderful and beneficial to others, but they don't erase the horrors that have sprung from the very same mindset that drives such good works. It's the mechanics of experience-as-reality itself that is being challenged here. Not any one person's interpretation of experience.

Philosophy is not science, just as experience is not determination. One can pull the other forward and often does, but each are very different stages of conceptual development. That's just how reality is.

reply to post by NorEaster

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

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

As far as defining reality based on individual, or group, experience, how many cult members tragedies, delusion-driven murders, religious crimes against humanity and fraudulent end-of-the-world announcements does it take to make the case that experiences are not reliable evidence of that which does in fact exist beyond the mind of the experiencer?

Like the same number of tragedies, delusion-driven murders, crimes against humanity, and various other atrocious acts done in the name of ________ (fill in the blank) ...an endless list. I'll start it of though. Greed, corruption, power, the almighty bottom dollar(profit), hatred, jealousy, separatist thinking, race, gender, lust (this ones big!!!), ignorance, big ego, etc etc....

It's human nature at fault, not what's done in the name of ________ (fill in the blank).

But, what do you honestly believe about that person's own experience of the revelation of God's righteous will? Is it as accurate as your own experience of what is true and possibly divine in nature? And if not, then what is the dependable and universal determinant that you've relied upon to ensure that your experience is more authentic than the experience that the suicide bomber (who definitely put his money where his mouth was) had?

Very well. Let's do some online research on the number of suicide bombers who have experienced transcendent love, third eye open, merge into a sea of Universal consciousness, and a few more items I've mentioned. By the way, good luck with that because I haven't found any yet. But please do post here if you do find something similar.

Now I don't doubt that there are those who have had a few experiences such as opening the third eye, and a few others, which have caused delusions of egotism and terrible acts afterwards, but that's due to incomplete understanding. However, in most paths, everything is tempered with Love, compassion, and selflessness, universally across the board.

You can hate the fact that someone like me challenges you, and that's fair. But it might be helpful to realize that such a challenge is not based on ego or hatred of whatever it is that you feel these experiences have given to you and the life you've worked hard to develop.

I welcome your challenge and have rebuttals for all the points. That's what I'm here for, because I was stood in your shoes challenging those who made claims as I do now. Only then I thought them to be delusions of grandeur, until I experienced them for myself and realized eventually that my old mode of existence was exactly like Plato's allegory of the Cave.

It might be a lot more accurate that this sort of challenge is based on concern for what has become a very well established trend of negative results emerging from deeply rooted faith in that which is solely based on a person's experience.

There is no faith in my reality. There is only experiencing or knowing these experiences. In many ways, I have no choice in things anymore as I wake up and live daily in an expanded consciousness that is no longer bound by a physical body at certain times, amongst a vast array of other added faculties.

It's the mechanics of experience-as-reality itself that is being challenged here. Not any one person's interpretation of experience.

This is exactly one of the ways how I got to where I am now. Questioning experience, subjectivity, the status quo. All of Buddhist and nondual philosophies revolves around just this. However they don;t stop there. For example, Buddha reached his enlightenment after 7 months straight of just being aware of his breath. Jesus spent 40 days in the desert

How many repeat these things in the West? Very little. The inner state is the laboratory where the exact same things that they reached, happen to you if you spend crucial time penetrating depths.

The human experience is not just left brained logic. There is the right brain, the heart, the gut, intuition, etc. All of these aspects can be penetrated in various depths and lead to realizations that are universally discussed across cultures and antiquity.

Philosophy is not science, just as experience is not determination. One can pull the other forward and often does, but each are very different stages of conceptual development. That's just how reality is.

Your defining a reality, I've experienced as undefinable. Who's right?

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

Originally posted by dominicus
As a Mystic, I don't discard anyone's pov, as everyone has One and I understand where you are coming from.

However, for me, I remember pre-existing prior to taking on a body here on earth and have met others who remember pre-existing. In that case, there is much more going on than meets the eye.

Now, as far as I go, since I was a child, all of this existence in a human body, who my dad and mom were, friends, physical death, this all seemed so artificial and not right. Like there is a schism in existence and I set out from childhood to find out what is really going on here. My existence here bothered me so much and I hated myself so much that I sought suicide once upon a time. What I finally realized, is that it was the ego construct which I was hating, which was artificial to my true nature. My investigations led to Direct experiences that have remained with me since, brought me to a detachment, a timelessness, compassion, and transcendence that I have never had prior to all this.

I find myself now complete, lacking, nor fearing nothing. I've directly seen that I am not the body, nor the mind(which itself superimposes illusions over a naked reality) and have met many MANY others who are now where I have come to.

There are man traps, trickery, and illusion of the mind along the way. I would consider, or at least wonder about in your case, if you've brought about your experiences by certain methods and have believed them to be artificial or illusions, when in all actuality that was not the case.

So I've since found the collective narcissism and egotism to be the cause of the world's ills and not truly who we really are. I've figured it out in myself and have seen in others how they've imprisoned themselves with delusions of the minds making and I've tested what Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Nisargadatta, and many others have taught and found them to be true Universally across the board and applicable to everyone and have found a few thousand, if not more, folks who also agree with this by seeing for themselves (some here on ats as well).

Along with this, as most scriptures and philosophies around the world say, we are going to evolve towards that regardless, and technology may give us a hand in that arena (Imagine a spirituality machine that allows everyone to access higher consciousness directly and makes it permanent)

So I understand where you are coming from, however wonder about your conclusions as the psyche/minds self justification of sorts

The only commonality I see throughout the doctrines of Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, The 10 commandments, etc. is the dominion over and contempt of nature, and a mastery of the body. That I find as the only valuable insight I've acquired throughout my time as a mystic. Sure I used to believe in supersensory aims, but I became honest with myself and questioned the vain desires and wants I was putting before truth. I wanted to be special, powerful, able to see different realms, move things with the mind etc, but these desires never made me so, no matter what method I practiced or what God I prayed to.

Spirituality became, and still is to me, vanity, merely a desire to appear spiritual to others. Hence the reason I find mystics sometimes pretentious, because I, like them, were after something—to be like God in the minds of not themselves, but everyone else. They need to convince others, seduce others, and thereby justify themselves by talking about themselves and how they interpret their experiences.

I cannot deny your experiences, nor would I ever try to. But I also cannot deny the unfathomable amount of evidence, logic and my own experiences that points to the contrary. I am a skeptic, but never that skeptical that I'd refuse all common sense (classical use of the phrase).

I mean we're all bound to the same universe, the same phenomena, the same goings on in and outside of our mind, but we see these things differently, from different angles, from different foundations, and from entirely unique perspectives. One man's astral projection is another man's good dream; one man's out of body experience is another man's hallucination; one man's prayer is another man's conversation with himself. Both are the same but conceived differently.

If one's interpretation is void of logic, and has only false premises from which it is deduced, it needs to be questioned and criticized.

But yes, to call some one egotistical and pretentious as if they could tell from a few words on a screen is, to me, entirely ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than petty name calling.

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

Case in point:

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

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

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

Originally posted by 1nf1del

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

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

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

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by 1nf1del

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

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

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

What's JREF?