Everyday Mindfulness

Yesterday there was some debate following Fee's guidelines update where she wrote, "I do feel I should reiterate the forum guidelines at this point. Posts here should not be used as a substitute for professional advice from a medical practitioner."

Firstly, I think it's better if this thread continues here, rather than the subject continuing to hijack Jenna's thread.
Secondly, I completely support Fee's decision to reiterate that particular point.
This community is growing daily. Inevitably, people drawn to this forum will have a wide range of reasons for wanting to know more about mindfulness. Some of those people will have complex health issues. I don't think Fee intended to mean that we should not be supportive, only that we need to be careful when advising others and that, in respect of that, it's worth questioning what are own limits are.
As Fee says, this is a difficult area.
When things were tough for me last year I spent some time on takethislife.com, a depression forum. That site issues a disclaimer that reads, "Nothing on this site is a substitute for advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a medical professional. While members here are well meaning, regard any and all information as for entertainment purposes only."
Well, I think that's taking things too far.
But there may be times when it feels right to say to someone, "I would advise you to seek the advice of a GP."
Rara writes, "because someone has professional status and/or a certificate doesn't necessarily make them any more "qualified" to advise. I mean, how can a GP deal with depression if they have never felt it first hand?"
That's a fair point.
The situation has not arisen yet, at least to my knowledge, but it's easy to imagine a case where a member has pressing health issues that might better be addressed by another forum. eg. the above-named depression forum.
I feel it's worth bearing that in mind as the community grows and grows.
My opinion is that having "Advice and experiences offered on the forum are no substitute for medical advice" in our guidelines means that we can gently point this out to a member if such a situation arose.
But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say on the matter.
All best, Jon

I didn't join the above mentioned thread but I did read it.

I believe it is okay to offer someone else support and even direct medical advice. I feel I am very knowledgeable of various forms of mental ill-health as a result of research and direct experience (in myself and those very close to me).

Having said that, I never think that an internet forum is never a substitute for a suitably experienced professional. I have a written a number of guides to anxiety in the past - essentially detailing methods to build a base from which someone can mount a recovery - and always preface my posts to that effect.

My emphasis above is on 'suitably experienced'. I do think some GPs are absolutely useless. My girlfriend was in a state of what appeared to by hypomania after beginning new SSRIs. She attended the GP for advice on her medication and the GP said 'do what you want'. What a useless and harmful thing to say.

Often my advice comes in the form of 'Find someone who knows what they're talking about. Challenge healthcare professionals if you feel their approach is not right. Find someone new if trust cannot be built or problems do not resolve.' I think taking an active approach in your own healthcare is essential to finding good treatment.

However, I feel, having put across the above information, experienced and knowledgeable enough to give advice on, for instance, medication. I often see people asking whether or not they should take medication, and I am more than happy to give them a list of pros and cons (I never tell them what to actually do). I think if you have the knowledge and experience, it is fine to share that with others. I just think you need to be mindful of how you do it. That is, we are strangers on the internet so whilst we can outline experiential wisdom we cannot presume to act as someone's healthcare professional.

There is a fine line to be found between useful advice and something which may be construed as online psychotherapy, diagnosis or treatment. I think attempting to moderate that line will be difficult. I just hope that our members are mindful of their actions, and I hope that they are capable of seeing themselves in the position of the other who has come to them for help. Above all, it should always be communicated to someone to seek appropriate professional medical advice.

Cheesus

That's very well put, Cheesus.
One reason why this subject is on my mind is that I've just become an administrator on Everyday Mindfulness and so I'm aware that I'll be carrying a certain responsibility in terms of keeping an eye on the site.
Here's the thing. As far as I know, Everyday Mindfulness is unique. I'm not aware of a similar online community and I have done a few searches.
As the community grows, certain dilemmas may well arise and decisions will have to be made about how we deal with those situations. There would be no point right now in trying to second guess what all those potential dilemmas might be. But the one currently under discussion strikes me as one to be especially mindfully about.
As there is no other mindfulness forum quite like this one, there is no precedent that can be referred to. For example, there is no other site we can look at to explore how the issue of mental health is handled on a mindfulness forum. That's up to us to decide. All of us. While the administrators can keep a watchful eye on things and ensure that things are ticking along nicely, the forum belongs to the people who join it. The community is everybody who joins it. I would say that "we're all in this together" but I don't want to be seen to be quoting David Cameron. So I won't say it.
As Gareth and Fee have mentioned, there are some exciting plans in store for the forum and it is set to grow and grow. It's great as it is. But there's always room for improvement and any ideas to that end are always warmly welcome.
As we look ahead, I don't see any harm at this stage in asking ourselves a few questions about the kind of community we have here and where we see it going. The issue of offering advice to fellow members seems to be an obvious area for discussion.
As much as anything, I suppose it's about establishing a tone that, in the long term, everyone is happy with.
Thanks, Jon

It's a question of balance I think.

Mindfulness is a very powerful tool that can help many people with many different things, and it doesn't need an expert to tell someone what the basic tenets of mindfulness are (because mindfulness is bewilderingly simple).

On the other hand, people who are first turning to mindfulness may be doing so from a position of extreme vulnerability, and we should be extremely careful with the way that these posters are handled.

Attentive and mindful moderation is what we need - something that I am working on.

I personally think these rules are fine. You have created this forum as a place for people to come together for a certain purpose, so you have some discretion and even responsibility to keep it on track somewhat. Sure it is the internet and anyone can say whatever they want, but this is more like a group here and generally groups have rules or they could devolve into some "Lord of the Flies" type situation.

I hope that the intention of stating "Advice and experiences offered on the forum are no substitute for medical advice" is that forum members can give in general their advice as usual, but there is this underlying disclaimer that the person knows that this is not medical advice. I'm sure that most everyone would already know that (and I know all of the regular members here know that), but you have to be clear just in case someone were to come on here very vulnerable and feel they are getting advice that could replace medical advice - I get that and I think it is reasonable to make that clear. I don't see a problem in occasionally coming into a thread and posting a reminder, either.

I would hope (and I believe) that removing posts would not happen too often, only if it is a very clear disruption of the rules and the community. There have been some posts here lately that have felt very different than the usual mood of this board, and I have found it distracting, but that is part of being in a group and honestly I have tried to use it as an opportunity to be mindful of my feelings and reactions. In general this forum has been really wonderful for me, I have truly enjoyed being able to interact with all of you in the short time I've been here, and I hope to see it continue to grow.

Hi all,

Yes, I did think after a while that thread digressed somewhat!

Anyway, Jon, you should have a lengthy DM from me on this so please take the time to read my suggestions on the topic.

I am all for guidelines, of course, every forum has them. Just for me, as I mentioned before, if there are already guidelines then I don't see why they need to be repeated over and over again. My suggestions in the message describe more tactful ways of leading people to these first and also appropriate disciplinary procedures should people break them. So far, I haven't seen anything that wouldn't be accepted on any other forum, so that's why I said what I said. I felt that there was a touch of unnecessary shunning of ideas and methods that people will inevitably come across on a forum like this.

I'm starting to feel that this whole topic is taking up more energy than necessary...I just think some people's perceptions of what is and isn't acceptable differ and should probably be discussed more directly with Jon and Fee. Being a community, we want the best for the site after all!

JonW wrote:When things were tough for me last year I spent some time on takethislife.com, a depression forum. That site issues a disclaimer that reads, "Nothing on this site is a substitute for advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a medical professional. While members here are well meaning, regard any and all information as for entertainment purposes only."
Well, I think that's taking things too far.

...

JonW wrote:The situation has not arisen yet, at least to my knowledge, but it's easy to imagine a case where a member has pressing health issues that might better be addressed by another forum. eg. the above-named depression forum.

I'm glad to see that even though you criticize their disclaimer you used their site and you'd recommend it to others.

The point of their disclaimer is to protect them from legal liability, not because you couldn't hand out advice on the site. Two different things. If they say it's just entertainment purposes, they've distanced themselves away from it being considered legit lega/medical advice and anyone who follows advice taken from that site can't come back and sue the operators of the site.

It's actually quite smart.

JonW wrote:My opinion is that having "Advice and experiences offered on the forum are no substitute for medical advice" in our guidelines means that we can gently point this out to a member if such a situation arose.

Yep.

If I could state what I think your (moderators) positions are, they would be as follows:

1. You want this site to be of value to others and you have a genuine concern for their wellbeing.

2. You aren't 100% schooled in all the twists and turns related to mindfulness (which may be a more narrow field) and meditation (the 800lb gorilla that mindfulness is part of). (BTW, this isn't a criticism! I know very very little about Buddhism, Zen, Theravada, etc, etc, etc, my focus was always on method, not all their religious hangings - so I'm right there with you in this sense).

3. You have a concern that someone speaks outside your domain of knowledge and experience and then hurts someone on this site who listens.

I've been practicing mindfulness... I don't even know, over 15 years, but less than 20. That doesn't mean I can play the "I know more than you" card, in reverse it means I'm responsible even more to try to help you the right way.

So, all the points I make below are to help in this effort. As Fee says, I hope you take it in the same spirit it's given.

Principles:

1. The more you limit any system, the more you constrain it's growth. There's a balance. Too much constraint will stifle, even kill, growth. Too little constraint and it turns into a free-for-all.

2. If you limit your system to your ability and experience, you'll never have a system greater than yourself.

3. Synergistic systems are those that have diverse abilities, which work together to achieve more than the sum of their parts.

4. Any system constrained to it's weakest member will never be greater than it's weakest member.


#1 - Application of constraint with a continual feedback loop (evaluating and adjusting until you get the results you want) is the best way to figure out what's best. And stating upfront to all parties involved that it's a work in progress and things will probably continue to be adjusted as we move forward let's everyone breath easier even if things aren't "going their way" right now.

#2 - If as moderators you've all started mindfulness within the past few years you need to decide what to do with anyone who is beyond your experience. If you tell them they can't speak beyond your experience, you've just limited the site's productivity to your own achievement.

#3 - if you can see the value in having a varied experience then you'll seek people with diverse backgrounds and varying levels of experience and work more on "working together" rather than "limiting speech". Think about your focus. If your concern is that someone will speak outside your domain of knowledge and harm someone else, you'll limit speech and you'll eliminate any synergy you could have. It's better to look more at what the point is of what you're saying and what the outcome will be of carrying it out rather than the words themselves. And the larger the context you can place what you say within, the more you can decide correctly if it's the best thing to be said. For example, looking narrowly at someone getting hurt by "bad" advice will cause you to lock all speech down, but when you place that in the context of principles like synergy you realize it's not fitting, so then you ask a very good question: "how can we build a highly synergistic community *and* prevent harm?" And there is a way, it's quite obvious.

#4. You'll always have some members that don't like things. They will mindfully not like them, and they'll mindfully complain to you all the time about them. At some point you have to draw up "this is for whom the site is, this is for whom the site is not" And accept those "not"s when they sign up, accept ahead of time they will complain and probably leave. It's like running drug rehab. You can't help the pimps and the pushers. They have to stop doing what they're doing, that's an easy line of delineation that says the drug rehab place can't help them. You also need such lines. Drawn up in advance, accepted in advance, you'll have no issues when you have that person come around that is the complainer, or is the bully, or is .... whatever your lines are.

I think #2 and #4 are the weakest points I can see on this site.

(#2) If you don't have a lot of experience, anyone who does becomes the threat because they are always talking outside your comfort zone. They'll say "this is what the results are" and you don't know that because you're not getting them, so rather than run the risk of someone using your site to propagate something that may be wrong, you'd rather shut them down. I'm seeing that happen now.

(#4) I just about rolled on the floor when (who was it?) said they didn't like posts over 5 paragraphs long. It was nice they added they are being mindful of it, but "really?" So they're coming to a FREE website and someone else is spending all that time to type something up to help someone and they want to complain because it's "too long"? "Really?"

But I think this is indicative of what happens when we fail at #2 too much. We get this knee-jerk reaction "someone complained, we gotta fix it" And then the people that are giving FREE help decide to leave instead of sit around trying to help people that seem to do nothing but complain about it.

Consider a little more on this 5-paragraph idea. So we limit posts to 5 paragraphs. I'll just take this one post and make it into 5 HUGE paragraphs. Problem solved, right? No no no, so now we have to limit the number of words per post. Ok, so you do that in the software and now I just make 50 posts in a row, all of that exact length (like splitting messages up in multiple tweets in twitter). Problem solved, right? No no no, so now you have to set the software so that we can only do a post say, every 10 minutes. Does that solve the problem? "no no no" because there will continually be ways to get around it and only after you've completely locked it down tight where there's no more than the equivalence of "5 paragraphs" posted you'll have ran everyone off. Imagine the legalistic mind it would take to do all of that. Who wants to be in a site ran by such legalism? No one who seeks the liberty that mindfulness brings. ****THIS IS A KEY POINT I"LL PICK UP AGAIN****

How can you tell if that's happening? Go look at the user list and find ones that made a moderate number of posts in a short period of time (showing high interest) that aren't still here. This retention problem is indicative of the site having problems making people who want to help feel welcome.

A combination of failing on #2 and #4 produce a site with people who all present problems, and "well you can try this" "you can try that" type of advice is given but no one's making any significant progress, because if they do, they get out of the comfort zone (#2) and then those that don't like it complain (#4) and then without balance of constraint (#1) the ones that progress, progress right out of the community.

Now to change subject.

I'd like to address the "religiosity" of the word "enlightenment". Before that word though, perhaps we should visit "meditation". I was raised christian, and I began meditation 20-ish years ago while I was in a fundamentalist christian church. Naturally my meditation wasn't sanctioned by the church and I had to do it even in private from my wife. That's because they all thought anyone who sat around with their eyes closed focused on their breathing, "worshiped buddha" (yep, they all think that buddha is a diety). Through my practice I found that actually meditation wasn't just a buddhist thing, but that christian contemplatives had practiced for hundreds of years. But I knew how touchy the word and practice was to the people I was with at the time so I never even tried to tell them anything about it. I kept it a secret.

Now, is "meditation" religious? No, an atheist can do it with no qualm, it's focus has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Do religions incorporate meditation as one of their core practices? of course. But religions also incorporate eating certain foods, having certain holiday practices, etc. So should we now not discuss eating because it's a religious practice? Should we now not mention Christmas because it's pagan-christian origins?

Here's a statement you may end up with on your site if you think all this censorship is great: "Hey, I'm taking you-know-what-day off and going to you-know-what with my relatives at the dinner table, but I'm also going to make sure I have some mindfulness time alone in my room when I you-know-what-I-do-sitting-on-my-cushion"

If you're not laughing at how ridiculous it is, then take a deep breath. You may be too wound up reading what I'm writing. Oh wait. I just realized, I went over 5 paragraphs a long time ago... Some of you guys have already given up reading. (sigh)

Now back to the seriousness of my point, "meditation" while used in some religions as a core practice has no "religiosity" in itself. And I'll argue that neither do enlightenment and awakening.

When you begin to be mindful you become aware of the thoughts and feelings coming up. One of the first realizations is that just because I feel ____ doesn't mean I have to just go along with it. I can just accept that feeling has come up and still be "OK" until it passes.

This, my dear friends, is an enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't some mystical light shining out of the sky and you gazing upwards to see some angel come down and touch your forehead with a wand that opens some mystical other-worldly experience to you.

Enlightenment is just a realization of a truth. Anyone that knows me knows I don't believe in anything mystical. You won't catch me talking about gods, angels, devils, heavens, hells, reincarnation, demiurges, etc from the viewpoint that I believe they are real or personalities, etc. From my experience, enlightenment is totally non-mystical and I'd imagine just about everyone that is reading this far in my post has already had a number of them. Maybe you just didn't call it that. Maybe you called it "insight" or some other word. Of course, religions have kidnapped these words and used them, just like meditation, but that doesn't mean it's a religious experience. They also kidnapped food, but I see we eat every day without any religious context.

Now you on this site, and moderators, may feel uncomfortable with a word like enlightenment, or insight, because you'd never thought about it within the context I'm giving, and I can understand that. That's why I'm inviting you to deeply think about what you're doing when you begin to introduce censorship.

Consider, if I'm true in my assertion of enlightenments and you censor me, have you harmed me? By far no, I'm happy to go where I'm accepted. Have you limited yourself? Yes.

If I'm false in my assertion of enlightenments and you don't censor me, have you harmed me? By far no. Have you limited yourself? No. And in due time you'll figure me out as a fake. How will you do that?

Well, if you don't have the experience, you simply gain it. Over time if I'm false you'll find what I say doesn't work.

And this is my recommendation on all censorship. A "caveat emptor" should be placed on such a site as this, with the high recommendation to all those who are new to take their time getting to know people, reading their posts, watching their interactions, seeing the results that others have from following this advice or that before they just head-long dive in to any change of practice. And then when people take advantage of your liberty and post things with ill-result, censor them if not out-right block them from the site.

Remember that "KEY POINT" up above, that those who practice mindfulness seek liberty? Eventually the censorship rules you impose will only run off those who are liberated. Mindfulness liberates you from control and from controlling others, once you've been freed from internal control you'll do what's proper and right, and you'll avoid all those who seek to impose their control on you. Even locking this site all the way down (which I don't think anyone wants) will still be able to help a few, but once they hit the glass ceiling imposed by your controls, they'll leave and continue growing.

Look around, do you have more people stuck in the same place looking for help or do you have more people that have worked through issues? Just think about it. If you don't have (many) that have worked through issues you've got to ask yourself why. Either the methods you're all using don't work (but I know they do, and I think you do too) or they do work and the people leave. It can't be neither.

Whatever your final decision is on censorship, make sure it's uniform. I was told my video on the 3 meditations I do in practicing mindfulness wasn't appropriate for the site because it gave instruction, yet others are able to post teaching links, recommend books, etc, all which also contain instruction. Your treatment is not equitable.

I won't go into awakening, other to say it also is just an enlightenment. It's the realization of a particular view, just like all enlightenments before it and all enlightenments that come after. It's literally "waking up" to see things as they are. This doesn't have any mysical, other-worldly, gods-n-dieties, etc, connotation. It's just an enlightenment on how this whole thing actually works. Quite liberating when it finally settles in.

One last thing I recommend, be more direct. There's a "politically correct, not wanting anyone to be upset" mentality that lends itself to never talk directly to the person for whom you're posting. Instead some generic "we're uncomfortable" post gets made with no clear instruction or application. Of course to "name names" in public isn't always best, but that's what PM is for and if the person doesn't listen to you in PM, then you start taking measures publicly. It's a progression from the most private methods to correct a problem to the most public. Were I a moderator, I would want a step-by-step how to deal with someone who's posting breaks the site guidelines. And it would start from PM and editing offending posts, to public postings directly stopping/countering what is not wanted, to eventual banning.

Enjoy yourself,

Omni

Omni

Another community member has given their feedback and suggested that to them posts of more than 5 paragraphs feel too long. I asked for feedback and they gave it, making jokes that 'oh no I've gone over 5 paragraphs' etc feels like you are mocking someone elses input.

I and others from the moderation team have mentioned on the board and I have said to you in PMs that the guidelines are still very new. We are working on them and requesting feedback as we go to try and get something in place that works for all of us. It feels like you acknowledge this in your post and yet aren't giving us the time to work on these things and as mentioned about dismissing the feedback others make.

Where religion is concerned, you seem to imply that the royal we aka the moderators, don't understand the religious basis of words, rituals and responses to things like meditation. Personally speaking this is incorrect and I have quite extensive experience of a strict Christian upbringing. It is not something I particularly want to talk about, as is my prerogative, but please don't make assumptions about my understanding or knowledge on this or any other matter.

I always try and respond mindfully and respectfully to your posts but confess I am starting to feel like anything other than agreeing with you provokes a challenging response. No, we do not agree on several matters but as a moderator, I am trying to balance your views against all the other views people express publicly and privately. I have to hold the confidences of other forum members.

Finally, as you have pointed out there is little we can do to stop you posting long threads, I would ask you to consider this though as part of helping us develop a thriving community where everyone feels comfortable and able to contribute. This is not censorship, merely asking that you consider others in the community. Forum members do not have read your posts if they find them overly long or confusing but as a moderator it is part of my role and it is increasingly becoming the largest part of my role.

OmniPada wrote:2. You aren't 100% schooled in all the twists and turns related to mindfulness (which may be a more narrow field)

It's practically impossible to be aware of and familiar with all the teachings and literature. However, it seems those with more than 1 year's experience of daily formal secular mindfulness meditation recognized by Oxford University and rooted in the Seven Pillars, etc., for example, - and especially those who have had direct tuition from MBSR teachers as part of an MBSR course, not to mention having studied how to teach themsleves, are schooled 'enough' in the practice, I would say.

OmniPada wrote:You have a concern that someone speaks outside your domain of knowledge and experience and then hurts someone on this site who listens.

I've been practicing mindfulness... I don't even know, over 15 years, but less than 20. That doesn't mean I can play the "I know more than you" card, in reverse it means I'm responsible even more to try to help you the right way.

Your "domain of knowledge" regarding mindfulness practice often appears to be at odds with the necessary secular tone regarding 'authorizing' certain angles on mindfulness practice that this forum needs.

OmniPada wrote:If you limit your system to your ability and experience, you'll never have a system greater than yourself.

If one already considers all other members and oneself already 'great' within the context of secular mindfulness practice, why would one need to expand one's system further? Maybe the system is already being 'stifled' by having to entertain more grandiose ideals that threaten the foundations of the forum...?

OmniPada wrote:Any system constrained to it's weakest member will never be greater than it's weakest member.

This forum's weakest member can be potentially empowered within a secular, clinically regulated context - through supportive posts from members and very possibly necessarily with the additional support of a qualified and regulated health practitioner.

OmniPada wrote:If as moderators you've all started mindfulness within the past few years you need to decide what to do with anyone who is beyond your experience.

People with mystical or religious leanings are very likely not beyond the moderators' experience.

OmniPada wrote:They'll say "this is what the results are" and you don't know that because you're not getting them

Powerful 'facts' regarding the results of mindfulness practice need to be made as factual as possible - i.e. get them verified by scientists. Hoards of scientists are presently studying this potential you are saying you have almost uniquely realized in this day and age, so why don't you go and help them out by giving pointers and asking them to scan your brain, etc. Just tell them you are Enlightened like the Buddha, etc., and come back to us and tell us what happens.

Spectactular claims of yours like: "I have found the place of no sorrow, pain, death, only abundant peace, joy, happiness, contentment. And I never have to leave" need spectacular evidence or proof if you want them to be considered by people who have never met or possibly even heard of anyone alive today who has reached such a place - in the flesh, never mind on the internet where anyone can be anyone. It may be worth noting that such statements and offers of bringing others to that place, when seen by very depressed people, is like offering a bottle of whisky to an alcoholic. In your case, however, you can't even hand the alcoholic the bottle then and there - you will be telling him it is available on your website - or even possibly in your private building, not to mention the whisky will have been regulated and tested by a government-appointed food regulator, while your 'product' will not have been. It's dodgy.

OmniPada wrote:When you begin to be mindful you become aware of the thoughts and feelings coming up. One of the first realizations is that just because I feel ____ doesn't mean I have to just go along with it. I can just accept that feeling has come up and still be "OK" until it passes.

This, my dear friends, is an enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't some mystical light shining out of the sky and you gazing upwards to see some angel come down and touch your forehead with a wand that opens some mystical other-worldly experience to you.

Enlightenment is just a realization of a truth.

This makes me wonder why, during the Age of Enlightenment, Newton and Voltaire weren't walking around in a "place of no sorrow, pain, death, only abundant peace, joy, happiness, contentment."..... and why I don't find myself in that place when I awaken from my nightly slumbers every morning. In other words: let's not get our definitions mixed up here. An enlightening situation is not the same as the Enlightenment that a Buddha has, in the sense that an enlightening situation involves thought, and the Buddha's Enlightenment was an experience beyond thought - "Beyond the beyond...". People joke about this in Buddhist circles quite a lot: "Thanks for the enlightening talk, Jonothan", "Oh really? I didn't know it was that profound!", and everyone laughs, "Ahahahah! What fun!". That's because they are aware of the different definitions.

OmniPada wrote:From my experience, enlightenment is totally non-mystical

Get yourself verified by the scientific community. Your aura of unlimited compassion and ubandant peace and joy will be much appreciated and they will welcome you in with open arms. The scientific community wasn't aware of Lama Oser's incredible ability to bypass his startle reflex, and they managed to expand their conception of the human nervous system as a result - benefitting all of us. I'm sure such scientists will jump at the opportunity to study a real-life Enlightened guy - such Enlightened people are in very short supply it seems.

Maybe you can lead the way for MBSR to expand and open up in the way you want - but it needs clinical testing and validation from a place like The Oxford Mindfulness Centre. If you genuinely want to help people in a non-mystical way by bringing this potential you say mindfulness has to provide to alleged non-mystical people like yourself, I would say this is the best place to start.

OmniPada wrote:Have you limited yourself? Yes.

Limiting oneself to the confines of scientific evidence with regards to the spectacular claims of a mindfulness would-be-teacher is a VERY sensible approach from my perspective. Elsewhere I have given a link to the book 'Stripping the Gurus' which gives insight into what has gone wrong in the past in such situations. Mysticism is almost always the key ingredient which facilitated the abuses which took place.

We no longer have the kind of world where every Mindfulness Teacher, Guru or Priest is a big friendly teddy bear free from desire waiting to teach people how to be truly liberated from the sadness of their life. The world is, and it seems has always been, a far more dangerous place with regards to those who proclaim to have spiritual insight - especially those who talk of living in absolute states free from suffering. Those people tend to be the most potentially dangerous.

OmniPada wrote:If I'm false in my assertion of enlightenments and you don't censor me, have you harmed me? By far no. Have you limited yourself? No.

The moderators may well have limited themselves if they don't censor you, since they are the 'guardians' of presenting 'safe' secular mindfulness practice to others who come to this forum. They limit their ability to do that if they are not censoring what remain to be at the moment mystical claims/'projected rewards' in amongst mindfulness practice advice. Such claims could be considered a kind of 'grooming' by would-be cult leaders, and I am sure the moderators on this site wouldn't want to encourage any of that kind of behaviour.

OmniPada wrote:Whatever your final decision is on censorship, make sure it's uniform. I was told my video on the 3 meditations I do in practicing mindfulness wasn't appropriate for the site because it gave instruction, yet others are able to post teaching links, recommend books, etc, all which also contain instruction. Your treatment is not equitable.

How the advice is framed is key - as I have been saying on 'our' thread, Omni. Trying to verify or elevate the value of your posts using mystical achievements is different from someone saying: "Check out how this author presents that secular teaching in a potentially secular but different way - maybe that will help". It's not saying: "Scientologists say that mindfulness meditation can be used by Thetans to deal with stress by going to their church and paying $1000", as if we all recognise ourselves as Thetans. If I said that last example statement to you, wouldn't you think it was a little 'creepy' how I dropped in 'Thetans' like that - it appears kind of manipulative. You could say something like "Well, I prefer to call ourselves humans", and I'd say, "Well, trust me we are Thetans - we have higher perception than those who don't know yet because by accepting our Thetan Nature, we become cleverer, and I am one of them so believe me. If you practice mindfulness at my Scientology Church, you'll see - I'll even make your visits free and maybe *cough* later you might want to donate, just come along, or just follow these exercises on this video of the rotating spiral shape...". This is how your arrival at this forum could easily have appeared to some.

OmniPada wrote:I won't go into awakening, other to say it also is just an enlightenment. It's the realization of a particular view, just like all enlightenments before it and all enlightenments that come after. It's literally "waking up" to see things as they are. This doesn't have any mysical, other-worldly, gods-n-dieties, etc, connotation. It's just an enlightenment on how this whole thing actually works. Quite liberating when it finally settles in.

Once you accept you are a Thetan too, that's very liberating - trust me, I'm cleverer than you, and I can help you; I can see things in a way that you can't... trust me.

Again; running your perceptions and cognitive state by The Oxford Centre for Mindfulness or equivalent in the USA to see what happens would be very recommendable.

FeeHutch wrote:Finally, as you have pointed out there is little we can do to stop you posting long threads, I would ask you to consider this though as part of helping us develop a thriving community where everyone feels comfortable and able to contribute. This is not censorship, merely asking that you consider others in the community. Forum members do not have read your posts if they find them overly long or confusing but as a moderator it is part of my role and it is increasingly becoming the largest part of my role.

Indeed - very long posts that don't get replied to can seem to outsiders like a group conclusion has been reached, when in fact the thread has been suffocated or subtly hijacked. I think that such long posts are often unnecessary, and although I think they can be useful to discuss large volumes of information, I have found myself having to proactively try to cut Omni's posts down when replying. I don't think one can limit the post lengths as a moderator in a generally beneficial way, but posters can be asked to proactively remain on-topic and to leave out what may appear like lengthy teachings out of context, etc., in amongst their reply.

Phew.
That's all.
Just...phew.