This makes so much sense to me. The physics of spirituality, the energetic forms of experience, the chakras and the body. I felt an opening as you spoke. Thank you for being here, Kristin.
Beautiful interview, thank you Rick and Kristin! I totally resonate with everything Kristin said, have had many of the same experiences... also the experience of Being with Source... Whole, Complete, One, Absolute Certainty, Everyone There as One, Beyond Consciousness, the beginning and the end rolled up into One.
Thank you Kristin. I have had some of the same experiences as you have. The `seeing through` & non-judgement can be startling at times & people who don`t see this cannot be expected to understand. You are very proficient at explaining it as far as I`m concerned.
Thank you for your time and energy a few times so we can learn from you both. I really enjoyed realizing that the process will be fluid and may flow back to clearing what "we think" is complete and done! I have said this outloud many times. " I thought I was done clearing that". It helps to have the intellectual confirmation, that my path is unfolding perfectly. Priceless ;)
Sometimes Rick your verbal reconstituting of "concepts" can sometimes obfuscate - not your intention I'm sure, but to me at least, the concept is clearer in experiencer's own terms.
My favorite moment in that interview: 0:58:48 - yaddayadda - 1:00:03 and then 1:00:04 - 1:00:08 lol At 1:01:08 he finally feeds her an answer and decides that his own answer sounds good and she is so happy that this one is over: 1:01:19
Rick - you have started to moderate the comments - great. I sometimes have felt to comment but put off by the low vibe. Hopefully it will discourage some of the disrespect in there. Good move !!
Where is the true divine wisdom here? A lot of blah, blah, blah. Each of these dimensions? What a confusing mess of words. Where do you find these people?
1:41:45 - 1:42:12 the *ultimate* BS flag. No profoundly enlightened being would be so deluded as to confuse that which is unpleasant with something that "feels good". Existence as seen with the eyes of insight most certainly *does not* feel good. Hence any "profoundly enlightened being" will see directly that any pleasant feeling based on temporal conditions only arises on the background of and dependent in its degree on an unpleasant feeling caused by those conditions (e.g. tasting food will be enjoyed no more than there is a preceding unpleasant feeling of lack of food or taste). Therefore he would most certainly never decide to enter such an existence *because it feels good*. It follows, of course, that this woman hasn't even reached stream entry, that is she has never realized the most crucial truths regarding the nature of existence, so how can she speak about what motivates a "profoundly enlightened being" ? *"Monks, just as even a little excrement, urine, mucus, pus or blood smells bad, so also I do not praise even a brief existence , not even for a moment."* (The Awakened One ("Buddha"), Anguttara Nikaya, XVI,3.13-14 [the available english translations seem to be extremely bad, this is my translation from the German translation by Nyanatiloka])
Reverand Eslam.. You Sound Like You Are Predjudice Against Women... Let Me Tell You Something...A Women Is Equally Capable.. Of Being Enlightened As A Man... (Even Though Many Religions Have tried To suppress The women We Will RIse..) Tara Grace...
Sometimes it amazes me how so many of these pseudo-intellectual seekers make the same mistake as the average religious person does when they create God to exist in their own image, whereas, the pseudo-intellectual seeker must have an enlightened being conform to their image of what an enlightened being is. Then I realize, I used to do the same thing without ever knowing it.
For Oneness to create perfect Duality is not an easy task! Hitler could've kill millions more but who knows... maybe there wouldn't be any nation frontiers by now. What I'm saying is... Duality is brought to perfection and that will take experiences.
0:07:18 - 0:07:38 BS flag ! This is the kind of faux pas that only an american charlatan would commit, being outstandingly ignorant and expecting an outstandingly ignorant audience. Everyone that is only slightly familiar with the Tibetan culture knows that the idea of using these rice offering bowls for anything other than tantric offering rituals and instead reinventing them as a kind of musical tools for "healing or vibrations" is a *western invention* . There is no way she could have been *traditionally* using them in this new age fashion as a monk in a previous lifetime. I am not sure if I will keep listening on to this obviously at least partially deluded woman (the most charitable interpretation), but if I do, I will from now on throw in another BS flag whenever I encounter more BS.
What good is all this apart from on on a totally selfish level.The human world is consumed with suffering,pain death, We torture animals and plants every minute of every day, but wow you are loving life so fuck all the unfortunates. This is hell.
0:12:08 - 0:12:14 Rarely do I find such an irresponsible piece of distortion of a profound truth ("the basic ground of everything is mind or awareness") into an obvious falsehood ("everything is conscious"). No Ma'am, my bicycle and bank account are not conscious.
This reminds me of something I read where a questioner was debating Ramana about vegetarianism telling him there is consciousness in plants, too, so it is also taking of life. Ramana quickly responded, "There is consciousness in that slab you're sitting on, too!" Ramana isn't given much credit for some of things he was "aware" of, but, if one really reads through the writings of him, there are a few tidbits of experience and experiences he relates to others about some of this "subtler realm" stuff.
mitego77 And notice the formulation "There is consciousness in that slab...", as opposed to "that slab is conscious" (break the slab in half, it is still pervaded by much the same mind, or do you think Ramana is stating that by breaking it in half or, for that matter, by drawing a line in the middle of it or by dusting it off a little now makes two conscious slab-halfs ?). Plus we do not know what word he used for "consciousness" which could easily have been "chit" or so which has precious little to do with being "conscious" (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness). Moreover, the slab is comparatively concrete and hardly representative of "everything", as the latter includes such practical mere abstractions as forests, bicycles and bank accounts. There is not the slightest similarity with those words by Ramana and those of Mrs. Kirk here. Rather Ramana's words are an example of the kind of truth I contrast Mrs. Kirk's statement against.
Soteriologe Excuse me as it's been a few years since I read Ramana, but here is the exchange. I'm still thinking there was another similar exchange but this is the one where he mentions the slabs. D.: Is it not killing life to prepare meat diet? M.: Ahimsa stands foremost in the code of discipline for the yogis. D.: Even plants have life. M.: So too the slabs you sit on! D.: May we gradually get ourselves accustomed to vegetarian food? M.: Yes. That is the way. Interesting that Ramana would confess that such a seemingly inanimate thing as a slab of concrete or rock has life. But maybe that was just a misinterpretation...
mitego77 Thanks for the quote, but my last reaction to you holds analogously. That slabs "have life" has no similarity to "slabs are conscious". *In fact the whole point of Ramana's mention of life in slabs seems to be to point out that merely to have life (prana ?), as slabs and plants do, does **_not_** mean to be conscious.* He is pointing out a fundamental difference between eating animals and eating plants or sitting on rocks *because* merely their having life does not allow us to conclude that they have subjectivity and hence suffer when eaten. There are stronger points in my last reaction to you which I do not want to repeat too much. I am also expanding on it in the commentary section of the video with the panel discussion in which Mrs Kirk participated. It may well be that prana which pervades slabs is of the nature of consciousness, but if that is so it would be the consciousness of the pervading field of prana, of whatever next higher hierarchical mind it would be, Gaya or whatever, "God" ultimately, and not of the localized slab. Prana needs to be whirling in quite a particular and intricate fashion in order to create such a thing as a "point of view", that is subjectivity. Not all water is whirlpools. But none of these discussion apply to "everything" which naturally includes abstractions such as forests, triangles, bank accounts or the set of all prime numbers. It should be obvious that _"everything is conscious"_ is quite the misleading and irresponsible thing to say, for instance for the very reason that Ramana makes the distinction here.
This is very hard to listen to. I know it's hard to put these concepts into words. But have a little confidence - just go for it. If we're going to use words, use words! Don't just hem and haw and stumble endlessly around.
This makes so much sense to me. The physics of spirituality, the energetic forms of experience, the chakras and the body. I felt an opening as you spoke. Thank you for being here, Kristin.
Pearls of wisdom which I really enjoyed. Thank you Kristin and Rick.
Beautiful interview, thank you Rick and Kristin! I totally resonate with everything Kristin said, have had many of the same experiences... also the experience of Being with Source... Whole, Complete, One, Absolute Certainty, Everyone There as One, Beyond Consciousness, the beginning and the end rolled up into One.
'we can't shift the darkness unless we meet it in ourselves'... beautifuly stated!
I Love this interview, Kristin is awesome. i wish i could meet her someday.
...an total treasure....thank you....
Thank you Kristin. I have had some of the same experiences as you have. The `seeing through` & non-judgement can be startling at times & people who don`t see this cannot be expected to understand. You are very proficient at explaining it as far as I`m concerned.
Thank you for your time and energy a few times so we can learn from you both. I really enjoyed realizing that the process will be fluid and may flow back to clearing what "we think" is complete and done! I have said this outloud many times. " I thought I was done clearing that". It helps to have the intellectual confirmation, that my path is unfolding perfectly. Priceless ;)
Thanks Kristin - and Rick. Loved this interview. I find some of the negativity in the comments utterly mind boggling but each to their own.
Sometimes Rick your verbal reconstituting of "concepts" can sometimes obfuscate - not your intention I'm sure, but to me at least, the concept is clearer in experiencer's own terms.
Experience speaks.
Wonderful. Among the questions I wished you'd asked are practical ones, like, does she have a family, how have they reacted to all this etc?
My favorite moment in that interview: 0:58:48 - yaddayadda - 1:00:03
and then 1:00:04 - 1:00:08 lol
At 1:01:08 he finally feeds her an answer and decides that his own answer sounds good and she is so happy that this one is over: 1:01:19
Rick - you have started to moderate the comments - great. I sometimes have felt to comment but put off by the low vibe. Hopefully it will discourage some of the disrespect in there. Good move !!
The answer that I was looking for those who talk to plants. Mushrooms calling out to be eaten. Lol.
Where is the true divine wisdom here? A lot of blah, blah, blah. Each of these dimensions? What a confusing mess of words. Where do you find these people?
1:41:45 - 1:42:12 the *ultimate* BS flag. No profoundly enlightened being would be so deluded as to confuse that which is unpleasant with something that "feels good". Existence as seen with the eyes of insight most certainly *does not* feel good. Hence any "profoundly enlightened being" will see directly that any pleasant feeling based on temporal conditions only arises on the background of and dependent in its degree on an unpleasant feeling caused by those conditions (e.g. tasting food will be enjoyed no more than there is a preceding unpleasant feeling of lack of food or taste). Therefore he would most certainly never decide to enter such an existence *because it feels good*.
It follows, of course, that this woman hasn't even reached stream entry, that is she has never realized the most crucial truths regarding the nature of existence, so how can she speak about what motivates a "profoundly enlightened being" ?
*"Monks, just as even a little excrement, urine, mucus, pus or blood smells bad, so also I do not praise even a brief existence , not even for a moment."*
(The Awakened One ("Buddha"), Anguttara Nikaya, XVI,3.13-14 [the available english translations seem to be extremely bad, this is my translation from the German translation by Nyanatiloka])
Reverand Eslam..
You Sound Like You Are Predjudice Against Women...
Let Me Tell You Something...A Women Is Equally Capable..
Of Being Enlightened As A Man...
(Even Though Many Religions Have tried To suppress The women
We Will RIse..)
Tara Grace...
Sometimes it amazes me how so many of these pseudo-intellectual seekers make the same mistake as the average religious person does when they create God to exist in their own image, whereas, the pseudo-intellectual seeker must have an enlightened being conform to their image of what an enlightened being is. Then I realize, I used to do the same thing without ever knowing it.
For Oneness to create perfect Duality is not an easy task! Hitler could've kill millions more but who knows... maybe there wouldn't be any nation frontiers by now. What I'm saying is... Duality is brought to perfection and that will take experiences.
0:07:18 - 0:07:38 BS flag !
This is the kind of faux pas that only an american charlatan would commit, being outstandingly ignorant and expecting an outstandingly ignorant audience.
Everyone that is only slightly familiar with the Tibetan culture knows that the idea of using these rice offering bowls for anything other than tantric offering rituals and instead reinventing them as a kind of musical tools for "healing or vibrations" is a *western invention* . There is no way she could have been *traditionally* using them in this new age fashion as a monk in a previous lifetime.
I am not sure if I will keep listening on to this obviously at least partially deluded woman (the most charitable interpretation), but if I do, I will from now on throw in another BS flag whenever I encounter more BS.
What good is all this apart from on on a totally selfish level.The human world is consumed with suffering,pain death, We torture animals and plants every minute of every day, but wow you are loving life so fuck all the unfortunates. This is hell.
0:12:08 - 0:12:14 Rarely do I find such an irresponsible piece of distortion of a profound truth ("the basic ground of everything is mind or awareness") into an obvious falsehood ("everything is conscious").
No Ma'am, my bicycle and bank account are not conscious.
My bicycle exhibits dualistic tendencies all the time.
This reminds me of something I read where a questioner was debating Ramana about vegetarianism telling him there is consciousness in plants, too, so it is also taking of life. Ramana quickly responded, "There is consciousness in that slab you're sitting on, too!" Ramana isn't given much credit for some of things he was "aware" of, but, if one really reads through the writings of him, there are a few tidbits of experience and experiences he relates to others about some of this "subtler realm" stuff.
mitego77
And notice the formulation "There is consciousness in that slab...", as opposed to "that slab is conscious" (break the slab in half, it is still pervaded by much the same mind, or do you think Ramana is stating that by breaking it in half or, for that matter, by drawing a line in the middle of it or by dusting it off a little now makes two conscious slab-halfs ?). Plus we do not know what word he used for "consciousness" which could easily have been "chit" or so which has precious little to do with being "conscious" (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness). Moreover, the slab is comparatively concrete and hardly representative of "everything", as the latter includes such practical mere abstractions as forests, bicycles and bank accounts. There is not the slightest similarity with those words by Ramana and those of Mrs. Kirk here. Rather Ramana's words are an example of the kind of truth I contrast Mrs. Kirk's statement against.
Soteriologe
Excuse me as it's been a few years since I read Ramana, but here is the exchange. I'm still thinking there was another similar exchange but this is the one where he mentions the slabs.
D.: Is it not killing life to prepare meat diet?
M.: Ahimsa stands foremost in the code of discipline for the yogis.
D.: Even plants have life.
M.: So too the slabs you sit on!
D.: May we gradually get ourselves accustomed to vegetarian food?
M.: Yes. That is the way.
Interesting that Ramana would confess that such a seemingly inanimate thing as a slab of concrete or rock has life. But maybe that was just a misinterpretation...
mitego77
Thanks for the quote, but my last reaction to you holds analogously. That slabs "have life" has no similarity to "slabs are conscious". *In fact the whole point of Ramana's mention of life in slabs seems to be to point out that merely to have life (prana ?), as slabs and plants do, does **_not_** mean to be conscious.* He is pointing out a fundamental difference between eating animals and eating plants or sitting on rocks *because* merely their having life does not allow us to conclude that they have subjectivity and hence suffer when eaten. There are stronger points in my last reaction to you which I do not want to repeat too much. I am also expanding on it in the commentary section of the video with the panel discussion in which Mrs Kirk participated.
It may well be that prana which pervades slabs is of the nature of consciousness, but if that is so it would be the consciousness of the pervading field of prana, of whatever next higher hierarchical mind it would be, Gaya or whatever, "God" ultimately, and not of the localized slab. Prana needs to be whirling in quite a particular and intricate fashion in order to create such a thing as a "point of view", that is subjectivity. Not all water is whirlpools.
But none of these discussion apply to "everything" which naturally includes abstractions such as forests, triangles, bank accounts or the set of all prime numbers. It should be obvious that _"everything is conscious"_ is quite the misleading and irresponsible thing to say, for instance for the very reason that Ramana makes the distinction here.
This amazing wonder of life?: imagine being a sentient with a parasite eating you from the inside, out,
This is very hard to listen to. I know it's hard to put these concepts into words. But have a little confidence - just go for it. If we're going to use words, use words! Don't just hem and haw and stumble endlessly around.
Healing Bulls? Lol