Early Retirement Extreme Forums

A few people have expressed an interest in this topic so lets give it go!

I've been studying Advaita Vedanta for a few years, mostly by listening to lectures by Swami Sarvapriyananda. He is an intellectual genius no doubt, and an incredibly giften teacher. Advaita appeals to my rational side, as does Buddhist metaphysics (I was an uncompromising atheist since I knew what the word meant) Yet it also feels a bit solipsistic and lonely.

I don't want to entirely loose my individuality and have increasingly been drawn to Shaktism and various other vedic schools which emphasise a more qualified non dualism where the individual retains their existence in some form.

Anyway there's lots I could ramble on about but I'd be interested in others experiences and thoughts on the matter...

I'd be very interested in a discussion whether either is possible w/o putting you own oxygen max first. In particular... or just to pick a pressure point, just how far is it possible to unify body and soul insofar you're still focused on paying the bills? To which degree is it possible to pursue [transpersonal realms] as a hobby?

You've lost me there jacob Something about putting your own oxygen mask on first you mean ?

chenda wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:20 pm

You've lost me there jacob Something about putting your own oxygen mask on first you mean ?

Such as whether it is even remotely possible to try to unify body and spirit if the body is still concerned about paying rent or any other kinds of debt (bad health, pains, etc.) or if the spirit is still concerned about paying rent to past insults or current injustices, etc.

Well...this is an age old question. The Indian tradition has generally I think advocated a certain detachment from worldly affairs and seeking the bliss of self-realisation (as Plotinus did incidentally, whose ideas are remarkably similar) untroubled by the illusory/temporary world of maya.

But counter to that is the idea of selfless service, service to man is service to god, see especially Sikhism or modern Hindu thinkers such as Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo.

Right, so the personal solution seems to have been to ignore/split the individual/collective dichotomy with each going their own way in terms of solutions. However, given how we're all fucked lest we resolve that dichotomy and bring the two perspectives together ...

(I'm currently trying to resolve this in another [non-ERE] space. Pardon me for being a bit agitated. It's been a hard day.)

I think it boils down to a fundamental question which I'll answer in in the negative.

Can you ever take care of others before you're able to take care of yourself?

You X we X caring me X caring you (integrating is work in progress)

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:50 pm

Right, so the personal
Can you ever take care of others before you're able to take care of yourself?

Yes, to some degree, but that sounds like codependency to me. How can engaging in dysfunctional behaviors promote healthy systems and integration?

@Frita - What the way out on a civilizational scale?

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:50 pm

Can you ever take care of others before you're able to take care of yourself?

My aunt is a Buddhist Chaplain for a large hospital in a major US city. Her training is interesting because she is on a spiritual path that has direct application for helping people deal with spiritual, religious, grief, health issues, end of life, families etc. It would be easy to burn out in this field without the training she has received and a large number of base hours of meditation practice. Her main practical advice to avoid burnout/empathy fatigue is to aim for at least 51% self-care at all times. This also takes a decent amount of training to find where that is. While it is possible to develop deeper awareness and compassion over time, it is very difficult to maintain that as a lay person (or a trained Chaplain) under all circumstances or for extended periods of time. Possible yes, sustainable without adverse outcomes, no.

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:15 pm

@Frita - What the way out on a civilizational scale?

Very hard because I think it requires self-awareness to be cultivated in individuals first.

chenda wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:16 pm

I don't want to entirely loose my individuality and have increasingly been drawn to Shaktism and various other vedic schools which emphasise a more qualified non dualism where the individual retains their existence in some form.

I was wondering if you have listened to any Krishnamurti? https://jkrishnamurti.org/teachings
I think he is good at pointing out and drawing the listener/viewer into interesting states.

mountainFrugal wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:22 am

I was wondering if you have listened to any Krishnamurti? https://jkrishnamurti.org/teachings
I think he is good at pointing out and drawing the listener/viewer into interesting states.

Thanks for the link, I've not explored him much yet although he looks an interesting figure.

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:50 pm

Right, so the personal solution seems to have been to ignore/split the individual/collective dichotomy with each going their own way in terms of solutions. However, given how we're all fucked lest we resolve that dichotomy and bring the two perspectives together ...

I can't think of any deeply spiritual person I know who would frame the issue that way. I think that's part of your frustration. Detaching spiritual health from the present state of the body is key to personal enlightenment. It also explains why people can help others before putting on their own oxygen mask. Maybe reread Frankl?

You know I mostly agree with you about the state of the world, but I'd never describe the situation as 'we're all fucked'. I know where we're headed, but many people (myself included) intend on living happy/meaningful lives until that eventuality. I wouldn't call that 'fucked' even though in a purely objective sense it might seem so.


If the goal is to achieve some kind of resolution resonance, maybe it would be easier to focus on making people happier/more content so then they have the emotional resilience to address the problem instead of trying to get people to agree to solutions by depressing and demoralizing them first? I'm not sure tbh but it's worth considering. Many of the countries who've successfully addressed climate issues (as a group) have a smaller wealth gap and higher personal happiness rankings. Could be a coincidence, but maybe not?


Sorry if I'm derailing chenda. I don't mean to ... I've spent most of the past year examining how much time I spend on my own well-being vs. giving significantly of myself to others (including the planet). Now that my kids are launched, I have much more control over my time and it's been enlightening to see which activities make me feel whole. Detaching myself from outcomes has been a big part of that process.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:14 pm

I can't think of any deeply spiritual person I know who would frame the issue that way. I think that's part of your frustration. Detaching spiritual health from the present state of the body is key to personal enlightenment. It also explains why people can help others before putting on their own oxygen mask. Maybe reread Frankl?

I can think of plenty humans framing it that way. I agree they're not particularly spiritual. They're not really detaching spiritual health from their bodily comforts, rather they're taking their own bodily health for granted and projecting their spiritual concerns unto others. Focusing on other people. Prayer warriors. Concern trolls. Not realizing that "the news" could ever happen to them until it does.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:14 pm

If the goal is to achieve some kind of resolution resonance, maybe it would be easier to focus on making people happier/more content so then they have the emotional resilience to address the problem instead of trying to get people to agree to solutions by depressing and demoralizing them first? I'm not sure tbh but it's worth considering. Many of the countries who've successfully addressed climate issues (as a group) have a smaller wealth gap and higher personal happiness rankings. Could be a coincidence, but maybe not?

Whether the positive or negative approach is better... freedom-to, freedom-from. The countries that are doing better at addressing CC tends to be countries that are not nationally compromised and can afford to spend time caring about others on a national scale.

I'm concerned this orientation can flip real fast once trouble arrives on their own shores.

TL;DR - It's very easy to be magnanimous as long as one's own base is covered. The test of spirituality is not charity but identifying with the other strongly enough to sacrifice the[ir] self. I doubt very many humans are at that point.

ETA: That sounded way more aggressive than I intended. Sorry.

Most mothers will take care of their children before taking care of themselves.

jacob wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:06 pm

The test of spirituality is not charity but identifying with the other strongly enough to sacrifice the[ir] self.

Says who ? ; ) I mean it is a definition but I don't think its the only one.

For obvious reasons in evolutionary terms, the humans most likely to engage in heroic acts of altruism (such as running back into a burning building), are males with relatively high levels of testosterone. Relatively high testosterone is also correlated with variety of behaviors such as loitering on street corners, being an actor, etc. Adult females are less likely to run back into burning buildings (exception being to save own children), because each female is more evolutionary valuable than each "extra" male.

Let me try another way.

I'm questioning to which degree spiritualism is possible if basic physical needs go unmet. I'm presuming that spiritual practice sits at the very top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The posit is, therefore, that a society where basic needs are not met will not develop spiritual practice (they may have ritual practices, but form is not function).

Monks and nuns can take a vow of poverty and split of (the dichotomy) but this is currently supported by charity from the [well-fed] surrounding society.

I likely use a limited definition of spiritualism from transpersonal (beyond the person) psychology. A baby is born without a self and innately (ha!) see themselves (<-language problem, because the baby doesn't see it in those terms) as part of their mother; and the mother to some degree see themselves the same way (dissolving part of their self and including their baby). Sometime between the age of 0.75 and 3 years old the self begins to form. The self is considered fully formed when the child can tell stories about themselves and start an autobiographical narrative. This happens around 3-4 and mostly explains why we don't have earlier memories or rather why we can't access anything earlier. The self may develop into identifying itself with "friends & family" as well. Further development increases this to identify with the squad of friends and then maybe national interests or a profession or corporation. Going further this identity may extend to all humans and perhaps all life. Going further again, it may extend to all things or all of reality and this is when mystical experiences begin to appear.
So in terms of definitions I'd say that spiritualism starts from that point on. It basically relates to so-called unitive "thinking" or nonduality. Whether it's voiding the ego as in some traditions or making the ego part of the so-called One or Many or finding a reality that underlies the physical reality, this all relates to the transpersonal (beyond the person). Spiritual traditions mostly seem to disagree on the precise approach/framework for this unity but they all seek it. It's possible to access these "feelings" or experiences with psychedelics. See e.g. viewtopic.php?p=249269#p249269 It's also possible achieve it with much practice. In any case the self if it still exists at this point is not in a form that we (non-spiritual people) would recognize just like we don't recognize/remember our experiences when we were younger than 3ish.

I'm not sure this practice is possible w/o support of basic needs. If not a spiritual bypass of unresolved lower needs in Maslow's pyramid won't work.

I see....well countries which guarantee their citizens have their lifelong needs met are amongst the least religious (notably northern Europe) and most secular, and have for the most adopted a materialist worldview (no gods no afterlife) Poverty and insecurity largely drive religiosity. [Edit: actually that last sentence is probably a big over simplification]

So perhaps maslow's pyramid needs to collapse to get to the top ?

Maslow is sometimes misquoted and also fixed in time. He later on indicated how some people can find enough meaning from higher levels in the pyramid to neglect the lower. Yes, there are monks who live on charity. But there are those who would rather starve than accept anything that goes against their self conceptions or choose to die for others.
This is not surprising given his mentor was Harlow who did the famous monkey studies with wire animals giving food vs soft ones that did not.

First answer before I read your recent post:

I'm not sure the 'acts' being discussed are related to spirituality per se. Like 7W5 said, most acts related to heroism are related to status seeking, as are other grand gestures of generosity. The way to pursue the goal of changing how people behave is to change the status structure (very hard but doable; see virtue signaling).

I think maybe 'empathy' or 'magnanimity' is a better substitute for 'spiritual' here (re: jacob's point). To me, a deeply spiritual person is not as concerned about the acts of others, or at least doesn't judge them based on their acts alone. They see the universality of the human condition -- they see past the acts to the souls themselves (including their own).

If you're looking to change how people act (other than making them happier/more compliant), I would think status-driven carrots are the right direction. Spirituality is for healing the soul, not motivating it.

See https://www.amazon.com/The-Status-Game/ ... 8&qid=&sr=

-----

Second answer:

I'm questioning to which degree spiritualism is possible if basic physical needs go unmet. I'm presuming that spiritual practice sits at the very top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The posit is, therefore, that a society where basic needs are not met will not develop spiritual practice (they may have ritual practices, but form is not function).

I'm not sure if formal spiritual practices can develop if basic needs go unmet,* but many have already developed and IMO can absolutely be adopted by people whether or not their basic needs go unmet. My first instinct is that spiritualism is more likely -- not less -- since it's an effective coping mechanism. To my mind, it's intellectualism at the top of the hierarchy which can only develop when all other needs are met.

Again, I think what you're referring to as spiritualism is really empathy and whether people can develop empathy when their basic needs go unmet .... lots of research has been done on that.

Believing that we are all one/equal (whether with the earth, environment, or as 'children of God') is not the same as believing we are all responsible for each other. In some ways, it could be seen as the opposite -- that becoming more spiritual means understanding that the only control we have is over ourselves, and really, only over our inner life.

There are overlays on that idea, including the golden rule and others, that make social cohesion easier and give people meaning, but at its essence I think the main idea is that we only control what we think and how we feel about ourselves.

I need to think about this some more. I hate answering this kind of stuff on the fly.

* I'm not sure if you're referencing established group spiritual practices (like organized religions) or individual spiritual practice.