Nikki Walton - New Growth - Ep. 6 - The Headless Way with Richard Lang

[@keithbertschin1213]

What a wonderful discussion, thank you so much

[@danalynart]

What an enlightening conversation. Thank you Nikki ❣️❤️❤️❤️

[@honestjohn6418]

Richard is such a nice man. Thank you for a wonderful interview

[@renko9067]

“What you’re seeing is where you think your face is.” Amazing.

[@Samrushtonblight]

Brilliant conversation

[@lyndaunkeless5985]

What a succinct summation of The Headless Way! I will refer people to this brilliant conversation for a shortcut to learning about this graceful way! Thank you Nikki and Richard! 🙏🌠

[@yump]

great conversation.

[@110B557]

Beautiful!

[@JoSpring]

Peek a boo!

[@FirstPersonHood]

The headless way and nondual speakers are a great combination.

[@MrJamesdryable]

No way! This is my phone background! It's been my background for about 2 months specifically to remind me of my empty space face.

[@randomazed]

Fascinating, but was put off by your tendency to ramble on while your guest patiently waits; talking over him repeatedly; and even going so far as to interrupt him to talk about a Kanye West video... You are captivating, sure, but you could be a better interviewer. Still got a like from me; this is constructive criticism, not meant to be rude. You certainly do better than I would!

[@TheSoteriologist]

46:18 - 46:22 That must be the total giveaway, lol. I mean the question, of course. Yeah, Neem Karoli Baba swallowed 1200 μg of LSD _( I think twice)_ with almost no perturbing effect on his mind, but did he get _that_ ? Richard, I suggest you sit down in the dark alone with 300 μg, come out 12 hours later and tell us how you stayed with your true nature unperturbed using the mere gimmick of not seeing your head 🤣 I mean seriously, do you ever listen to yourself ? 47:25 Richard assumes that spiritual traditions make thinking "a bad thing", and that expression of total ignorance regarding the traditions is then used to inform third parties about the headless way and its difference or superiorty to those traditions ? 39:50 - 40:10 That is "a bit" of a non-sequitur there. I accept this to be true "ultimately" _(that is if you metaphysically spell it out correctly which doesn't happen here)_ , but the idea that _"I am you"_ would _simplistically_ follow from the mutual openness is new age bunk. After all, the words "I" and "you" are meant to designate and _distinguiish_ the respective points of view. And since I have _your_ face and you don't and you have _mine_ and I don't: that cogently proves that our respective points of view are mutually exclusive. And therefore I am _not_ you at all. Between minutes 30 and 35 he's starting to get a bit fuzzy about the benefits. Certainly they are there, but if one practices Vipassana, for instance, for 50 years as he did with the headless way, I think the results should be a bit less fuzzy. Of course, it would be even better if one combines both practices. 21:00 While this is good advice for beginners, the basic intuition that tension should ultimately go is not an error one gets "caught up in", it is the goal of the spiritual path, Richard. Again: it is true that for the _initial_ understanding of the headless way, it is not necessary to have already overcome suffering merely by these seeing experiments. But if the practice isn't taken to the point of _actually_ and _definitively_ liberating yourself from the relative POV that suffers, then the headless way has been reduced to some form of spiritually irrelevant gimmick or diversion. Not by Douglas Harding, mind you, because he clearly expounded a complete path resulting in complete acceptance of what arises which is necessarily inconsistent with emotional tension. It would, of course, be understandable that one who maybe hasn't gotten very far on Harding's path while still wanting to represent it for others, would after decades of trying want to make himself believe _(by convincing others)_ that the headless way has nothing to do with reaching that fruition. I am not saying that this is so for Richard. He may just be wanting to accomodate beginners, but some interactions make me suspicious here. If one cannot reach _effective_ unio mystica, let alone Nirvana, it is advantageous for the ego to subscribe to the idea that the very notion of unio mystica _(and beyond)_ was foolish to begin with. And since there is a large market in the degenerate modern mind set for spiritually lazy people, it is easy to reel in multitudes who had been just waiting for someone to relieve them from the necessity to get anywhere while still phantasizing they are spiritually on track and substitute the end of suffering with the platitude of just claiming _"I must have wanted suffering for the thrill of it"_ . Guess how many people bombed by the countries such degenerate "spiritual people" come from would find this purely rhetorical "liberation" convincing !

[@TheSoteriologist]

@@AlastairGames _"1. I feel as if Richard is being mocked here."_ a) Your feelings are of zero consequence for the truth value of whatever I said. This is not a sentimentality contest. b) Perhaps familiarize yourself with the use of rhetoric devices to emphasize points. It would be a different matter if I used rhetoric _instead_ of arguments, but as it is, perhaps it helps to grow up before entering a discussion. c) Even though I need not bring you up to speed on this issue, it isn't Richard that is being mocked here but if at all, it is the ludicrousness of of one of his statements.

[@TheSoteriologist]

@@AlastairGames _"2. I don't think he's addressing the traditions but the people."_ Fair enough, but notice his emphasis and speaking of the fact that _" _*_this_*_ validates thinking"_ as if that was news. At the very least, in context of having mentioned the Zen tradition immediately before, it would have been called for to mentioned _"just like the traditional paths, _*_this also_*_ ..."_ . I also do not believe he was merely addressing the people, but I could be wrong.

[@TheSoteriologist]

@@AlastairGames _"3,a. I think his language here can resonate with some people and help point them towards a change."_ If the statement is false and misleading, it would be reason to _worry_ if it resonates with people ! _"To be fair though, this statement is a bit weird for me as well."_ ... because you intuitively sense that it is false and misleading and _against_ perennial truth. Traditionally, there was always a clear line between saying _"The fundamental nature of our minds is The One or inseparable"_ or _"God is all in all"_ or some such on the one hand which is sacred reality, and _"I am you"_ on the other which is just total bunk. Just because two waves are both the ocean doesn't make one wave the other wave. If you were to be genuinely capable of telling someone _"I am you"_ it would require of you to inhabit a state of consciousness in which all the interior experiences of "the other" would be _your_ interior experiences and contained therein. Yeah, THE SUN _(in the sense of being the whole solar system)_ might say something like _"I am the Earth"_ since THE SUN includes the Earth, but that isn't something for Mars or even Jupiter to claim. You might be curious about Marc Leavitt's description of his realization in _"Behind the Scenes"_ _(great book by the way, it's like "the headless way in earnest")_ where he basically says something of the sort that he is everyone and everything that arises, but that came about by a transference of his sense of being to The One by serious "backing up" as he calls it. In other words, the only reason he could be all others as well is because of the relinquishment of his personal position. It wasn't "Marc" who was his daughter on his knees, it was God, so to speak, that played both Marc and his daughter. I think I remember Trungpa Rinpoche saying something to the effect that yes, we are all one, but only because each of us is zero. It is not the case that there would be one here and another one there and they'd be each other. That's just nonsense.

[@TheSoteriologist]

@@AlastairGames I get your point, but I feel that his question at 46:18 - 46:22 betrays arrogance based on a spiritual Dunning-Kruger-effect of such enormity that it becomes a matter of fierce compassion to reflect some of it back to him in order "to save Richard's soul", haha. And so people will not like me, tough shit, but I will have done what's necessary. And when I ask _"I mean seriously, do you ever listen to yourself ?"_ that is precisely a reference to his expression, not to his essential being. I have pointed such things out to him repeatedly and hence there is habitual trait there which is germane to the way my question was put.

[@FirstPersonHood]

Wow