Thank you for being so forthright and honest as to what your 'edge' of learning has been, Karen. The evolution of your growth is so evident in who you are now. I look forward to seeing how your work with others continues to evolve as your offering so obviously comes out of the alchemical fire of Truth that you have given yourself to.
I am an extremely critical viewer of 'awakening' claimants. I feel I should be ,because, we have to face the bare faced fact that, 'awakening' is a mighty big claim. This woman is very sincere, it is blazingly obvious, very truthful, very honest. I would not personally seek her counsel, but she has much to offer, which could only be the result of a significant 'shift' in her consciousness.
I really like Rick's way of interviewing now, more than a few years ago. I look forward to the interviews now. There his a new way of being there. Thanks, Rick.
Beautiful! Thank you again Rick, great interview! You are most definitely a teacher Rick, you have taught me much about listening and inquiry and presence. Thank you for all of this! :)
It is a great misfortune of true spirituality (and the humanity) that the a great many humans need to believe in Jesus's "miracles" in order to understand that his message of Surrender, Forgive and Love indeed works greatly. It is a great misfortune of true spirituality (and the humanity) that the a great many humans need to believe in something "miraculous", "extra ordinary", "special" and "earth shattering" happened to Tolle in order to understand that his message of "living in now" indeed works greatly. A student of science doesn't need to believe that Sir Isaac Newton was the "special chosen one" to whom the "God" spoke directly in Perfect English in order to know that his formula of gravity correctly predicts objects falling to the earth.
Suffering ====== Existence of the blood sucking mosquitoes might be suffering to the humans whose blood it might suck. Existence of the blood sucking leeches might be suffering to the humans whose blood it might suck. Who created the mosquitoes and leeches and humans? The Nature. Suffering is the (part of the) fabric with which the (dual) universe is made of. Love is the cause. Suffering is one of the consequences. To love the (dual) creation is to love the suffering (too) that it might involve. To say yes to the creation is to say yes to pain and suffering too. The birth itself is the process of pain. As the human baby passes through the birth canal - it involves significant pain to both the baby and the mother. When the babies come out, most of them cry for some time. Are they crying because they are ecstasy, joy and in great peace and stillness? Perhaps, not. To say yes to the baby and birth - is to say yes to some pain and suffering too. To think that the baby suffer no pain and suffering is to be very ignorant and delusional. When a mouse sees a cat… ...it experiences fear. The fear doesn’t feel good in the body. The fear can be called suffering. When a deer sees a tiger… ...it experiences fear. The fear doesn’t feel good in the body. The fear can be called suffering. When a lady (or a man) sees a mouse in the kitchen pantry - both the mouse and the lady (or the man) might experience fear and suffering. The mouse might suffer because it sees an immediate danger. The lady (or the man) might suffer… ...because, she (or he) can think, reason, predict and speculate. The lady (or the man) might imagine that there might be more of the mice and that they might cause (or might have already caused) a great deal of damage. She (or he) can do it because he (or she) can think. This thinking gives her (or him) great advantage in planning, prevention and cure and in survival - but, it also means that she (or he) has much greater capacity to suffer. The ability to think has given humans great survival advantage over other animals - but, it has also greatly increases their capacity to suffer. Because of being able to think, they can suffer even when there is no real, immediate, physical threat to the physical survival of the human body. They can do so because they remember, imagine, speculate, plan, analyze and because they can run many “what if” scenarios in their mind.
Most animals have this built-in, instinctive fear. I think even lions have might have fear perhaps, the fear of the loud noise, thunder and fire. Humans are little different… ...because… ...they can think. predict dangers and plan for the safety. Thinking gives them advantage in terms of survival. But it also means that they experience fear (and other emotions that don’t feel good in the body) even when their cause is not really, physically present in the immediate environment. When humans are said to be “suffering”.... ...for the large part… ...they are either: A. Going through the many “what if” scenarios in their head are imagining, projecting, anticipating all potential dangers to their physical, economical and social well-being. or B. Going through the memories of what happened in the past to run “what if” on those to project what could have happened if they did something else, why they didn’t do something else and to see if they can learn anything from what happened. or C. Analyzing the situations of others to see why they seem to be better placed in terms of safety, security, well-being, resources, happiness or pleasure and if one can learn something from what they did. When a dog sees another dog with a bone are trying to mate with a lady dog, the emotion, the feeling that the dog experiences might not be peace and happiness. In many cases, the dog would likely try to attack the dog with the bone or with the mate. Many humans are well equipped to be happy and peaceful when they are reasonably assured of resources and survival. However as they deal with society and the shared resources, the academics, grades, career, money and women - they see many dogs with bones and with the lady dogs - and those with the bones and lady dogs - see many other dogs ready to pounce on what they have. And, because, humans have the capacity to think, imagine, project, guess and anticipate (which they do use to their advantage), they see these threats even when they are not present in the immediate environment. Bottom line: Suffering is not the fault of humans. This is how the nature works. The humans are learning and are doing the best they know and the best they can at this point of time.
Following is what I think about the suffering: 1. Suffering exists from time to time and it is fine. It is part of being alive. It is part of having ability to think. 2. The world of creation is dual and in it many things exist in almost constant struggle - cat and mouse, frog and snake, mosquitos and humans, dogs and other dogs, lions and other lions, humans and other humans. 3. The knowledge and awareness of the #2 creates suffering, a low grade existential unease and discomfort in the body. For the humans, the ability to think immensely increases the chance of survival. It also greatly increases the potential for suffering because of potentially constant awareness of the dangers and threats. 4. Being OK with the #3 (the low grade pain or unease) is the key to become OK with it. 5. Being OK with it is going beyond #3 (the low grade pain or unease). It is like a human being becoming ok with being only 5 feet 3 inches tall, being bald or with having certain skin color. Once you are completely OK with it, it stops bothering you. 6. Default impulse for most (if not, all) humans is to attempt to run away from what is unpleasant. The #3 - the feeling of unease - is unpleasant and thus most humans are naturally, biologically wired to attempt to run away from it. 7. This attempt of running away is what is commonly known as suffering. This attempt of running away prevents the clear viewing and clear understanding of the basic unease. This lack of understanding keeps humans seeking, wishing and hoping endlessly. 8. Once the clear understanding arrives, the situation might not change a lot, just as a 5 feet 3 inches man doesn't become 6 feet tall just by being OK with it. He might still be unfit for many sports and jobs, he might still have slightly decreased chance of mating certain ladies, he might still be "looked down upon" by some. Even the low grade unease might not change much but being OK with these eliminates the third level of suffering. This third level of suffering is what is Dukkha - the sorry thought - or the thoughts like "this shouldn't happen" or "this shouldn't have happened" or "it shouldn't be this way". 9. This third level of suffering - or Dukkha - or sorry thoughts - account for about 80-90% of the suffering for many to most humans. Someone's son might still be dead, he might still experience low grade pain about it but once he is OK with it - there is no longer a 10X larger Dukha - or sorry thoughts - around it. The human society might indeed be unfair, unnatural and slightly lacking in the wisdom and compassion. Rich and powerful might indeed have unfair advantage. Many Rich and powerful might indeed be selfish, dishonest, cruel and lacking in kindness, care and compassion. Dick Cheney might indeed be evil. Genghis khan might indeed be cruel. Many humans might indeed be selfish, dishonest, unkind and uncaring. And, this awareness might indeed be felt as an occasional or even continued low grade pain in the body - but once one understands this pain is OK with it - there is no longer 10X layer of Dukkha - or, sorry thoughts - around it. 10. Spirituality in my opinion is about developing understanding and stamina and about eliminating the third level of suffering - or Dukkha. In my opinion, spirituality is not about being insensitive, inhuman or superhuman.
*A 2.0 on a -3.0 to +3.0 scale.* Looks like Rick chooses his guests more wisely lately, but not so sure since he is planning ahead a lot. A very pleasant guest, but with some tedious lengths in this which gets a substraction of 0.2 points. Apart from that, a perfect rating without original cosmological contributions, and an extra 0.2 points for some inside information on Eckhart Tolle: 2.0-0.2+0.2=2.0 . She still has a good dose of submissiveness in her personality, I get this in her slightly exaggerated gratitude for anything Rick says. I wouldn't know how to rape a woman even if I wanted to and of course there is no moral justification for what was done to her, but I can understand that when she was a young woman of 13 years and emitting those signals then, that someone inclined towards rape would have found her irresistible. I say that merely to point out how some character traits do seem to persist quite a bit beyond spiritual transformations. Too funny to see someone who had a direct insight following a pointing out instruction by Deepak Chopra ! Chopra is her root guru, lol. No criticism, just enjoying that bit ! 1:01:07 His original name seems to have been Ullrich Leonard *Tölle* (note the Umlaut "ö" which is not like an "o"), so it's hardly anglicizable, but should sound like the German word for "hell" = "Hölle", only starting with a T instead of an H: de.forvo.com/word/h%C3%B6lle/ _About the rating: anything below and including 0 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 +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +2 to +2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 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_ !
+Soteriologe In general, I appreciate reading your comments - as they often add insightful perspective. As for the rape comment, I don't agree with you. and I find this new age type of thinking offensive. As a woman who has personally known a number of (strong) women and girls who have experienced sexual assault - I don't agree that there is a 'signal' that these women were transmitting that said ' hey, I'm a victim', which somehow invited this attack.
+Anne4427 _this new age type of thinking_ In no way am I guilty of new age type thinking. What exactly do you mean ? _"As for the rape comment, I don't agree with you"_ *Please absolutely quote the sentence you do not agree with. If you can't, it means you have not properly read what I say and it's your fault. I find it (more than) offensive to be accused of what I haven't done due to sloppy reading.* _"As a woman who has personally known a number of (strong) women and girls who have experienced sexual assault - I don't agree that there is a 'signal' that these women were transmitting"_ *That is deplorable, well known and hence a bit trivial, but contradicts nothing I said. Where did I say that **_all_** or even most rape victims emit submissive signals leading to the rape ?*
+Soteriologe You implied she somehow brought this on herself, and in the process, implied this as a general assumption regarding victims of sexual assault. 'but I can understand that when she was a young woman of 13 years and emitting those signals then, that someone inclined towards rape would have found her irresistible'. I would say she demonstrates genuine humility, not 'submissiveness'.Lighten up Soteriologe! You don't need to be so defensive if someone takes issue with your comments!
+Anne4427 _"and in the process,_ [???] _implied this as a general assumption regarding victims of sexual assault"_ *That is pure fantasy on your part. I am not guilty of your logical fallacies. But you are guilty of defamation because you repeatedly try to make me responsible for the implications of your logical fallacies.* _"You don't need to be so defensive if someone takes issue with your comments!"_ Oh yes, in the age of _guilty by virtue of someone else's felt nonsense_, sadly, I have to be, but not over "taking issue", but over defamatory accusations. And therefore I would ask you to be very careful from now on what you accuse me of here. _"You implied she somehow brought this on herself"_ As logician, I know what an implication is. Nowhere did I imply this. Prove it based on my words. That quote shows nothing of the kind. It only mentions that a potential rapist *would* have perceived her overly pliable and complaisant (that is "submissive") behavior - *if it was similar back then* (note the irrealis as in _"would have found her irresistible"_) - as irresistible, *not that this would make her responsible in any way for the rape* (that my words would suggest such a thing is purely your fantasy). I am in no way responsible for your arbitrary re-interpretation. And humility is something completely different. The Dalai Lama is very humble but very, very sure of himself and his own judgement and wouldn't yield one inch to accord with some fluffy poetry, and he is not permanently overflowing with expressions of gratitude for every little truism the other one blathers.
