Scott and Sean Debate

[Cameron]

[Cameron]

Actually there is nothing "bad" about it these types of situations are fertile opportunities for self discovery I think.

 

I just didn't want to leave it the way it was since so many of us here are fans of Scott. Nice to honestly know what the real issue was.

 

If it was just ego fine no judgment.

[Cameron]

Ok, my impression after re reading that.

 

Sean was sort of trying to move the discussion to a higher level. Scott was saying we already are at that 'higher level'.

 

Then there was finger pointing.

 

Ok, I am more than willing to drop the subject entirely now unless someone has something enlightening to say about

[sean]

IMO this wasn't much of a debate, mostly an unfortunate communication breakdown. I think Scott really misunderstood where I was coming from in my first post and kind of came out of the gate swinging. I had just sort of winged off that first post without even really thinking ... I would have worded my point more carefuly if I'd known this was such a sensitive subject for him, or maybe not posted at all. To me, this argument was like, if you worked with a lot of different ethnicities every day in your job, and you were really cool with all of them, you guys all partied and respected each other and were pretty good friends. And one day a bunch of you are in the cafeteria and some Irish guys are joking around, yelling at each other, and you turn to this Irish girl next to you and go "hahahah! you ever notice how these Irish guys here are always just a little louder and crazier than the rest?" And all of a sudden she is standing up yelling at you, drawing a crowd, breaking down the history of the Irish struggle, suggesting you are racist, citing philosophy to prove that Irish people are not actually louder. And you are just like, lady, chill out! I was just making an observation and casually sharing it with you. I'm not plotting a coup on Ireland. I'm your friend and co-worker, sitting here with a bagel asking you very calmly to stop spitting in my face.

 

Toward the end of the thread I kind of got into things debate style a bit, mostly because he kept insinuating bigotry. Also from a logical debate context, his arguments were not sound IMO. It's probably best that he did lock the thread because I didn't agree with the logic in his last post either and I would have continued going back and forth.

 

Sean

[Cameron]

I had a feeling the whole "Now Prasara is here we can all stop worshipping and doing our silly practices" comment was a joke. It really sounded like that to me in which case that would change the entire "vibe" of a conversation. More like you were kicking it with a friend.

 

But he basically came at you like every comment you said was meant as a challenge or something.

 

Scott needs to take his own advice in the Flowfit DVD when he says, "Have fun and explore" or somethng.LOL.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Cameron

[Lozen]

Can somebody give me the link to this closed, controversial thread? My curiousity is piqued.

 

Personally I think that although Scott is really cute, Sean is cuter.

 

Okay, I guess I should read the debate before picking sides.

[Cameron]

Glad to have your highly unbiased insight into the matter Yael. It's really about who is cutest to you girls anyway, isn't it?

[Lozen]

Glad to have your highly unbiased insight into the matter Yael. It's really about who is cutest to you girls anyway, isn't it?

 

Hey, I asked for the link, didn't I?!

 

Plus, you think Sean is cute too, I know you do.

[Cameron]

WTF?! I do not!

 

*secretly wishes Sean was a chic*

[Lozen]

I really was serious about wanting the link though!! I will even cover up the names as I read it so I can make an unbiased assessment.

[Cameron]

Find it yourself!

 

*coughs and sips tea*

[Cameron]

Apparently she is available. Think I have a shot?!

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2006 by Cameron

[affenbrot]

hey Cameron, what kind of tea are you drinking???

[Cameron]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

 

*has flashback*

[Smile]

Apparently she is available. Think I have a shot?!

 

I don't see the image. Blocked by services, so post it in the gallery.

 

but mainwhile, she is also available...

 

[Cameron]

Max I think you can do better. But you may have to venture out of Brookyn?

[Lozen]

Somebody has to have a link...

[Cameron]

Go the the Bill Bodri articles thread and you shall find answers to the questions that you seek.

[neimad]

hey guys,

 

being very interested by scott and seans thread i decided to have a go and see where i ended up..... but staying away (as much as possible) from cross-cultural concepts.

 

check the thread on rmax forum called "transcendance" and there are some fantastic things that show you truly where scotts opinion on these matters truly lie.

 

the first is maslows pyramid of needs, where he defines CST as covering the first level and flowfighting as covering the second.

 

the top level, which is the territory we venture into when discussing such lofty beliefs as enlightenment (because they ARE just beliefs until you experience it for truth) and so on, is left to the individual.

 

so scott's opinion (although i add a disclaimer here that i am not speaking for him in any way. i am merely reiterating what i believe his opinion to be based on our discussion) is basically this:

 

CST lays the foundation, through physical health, mobility, removal of fear, etc.... to realise such things as enlightenment for the personal experience it is for each individual.

 

he never claims that CST gives you this.... merely provides an oppurtunity to go there, if you wish, by using it as a springboard (or my analogy... CST gives you the blueprints to use the resources you already have (your body) to build a jet, but no destination is supplied... thats up to you!). and he wants to keep CST free of all concepts such as this, so the journey and experience can be the personal odyssey it should be for each and every individual.

 

philsophising is just that, it's not experiencing it. and it is all about the experience and i agree with his feeling that CST is about deepening your own personal experience through daily practice. nothing more, nothing less. the rest is up to the individual.

 

the original point that concepts such as chi, etc need not be discussed or referenced to obtain the same benefits is perfectly valid IMHO. and i would agree that it actually complicates things, the mystical or exotic is certainly attractive.... but how much of it do we actually miss just because the cultural concepts are out of reach of our 21st century western minds?

 

personally i have gained A LOT through my daily practice of CST that go beyond merely physical results. but i do find that my daily meditations are a perfect complement, although that is my own choice to pursue.

[thelerner]

Some times what an argument really shows is more about bad timing then what ever the hell the whole argument is about.

 

I think thats mostly the case here. Bad timing. A quickly written post from an obvious admirer is taken the wrong way. A sales pitch that is obviously over the top is taken as egotism. On another day or time, it would be 'understood', but irritant forces stick and allign and you have conflict.

 

Eh, such is life.

 

Michael

[Cameron]

I don't think so Michael. There were serious issues Sean had with Scott(I wasn't aware of them) involving his views on his system.

 

I always take the view that it's the guys system, it's his website, he can say whatever he wants on there it's not my business but Sean knew Scott better and Sean is into "all the unneccissary qi stuff etc"(obviously) so had something to say.

 

Scott more or less ignored Sean's questions and referred him back to his own system as having all the answers. Then it got ugly.

 

I don't think it was a mistake or bad timing. Actually there is no such thng as such. Perhaps lack of awareness or listening to another in the present moment would be better.

 

I think if someone is in a 'bad mood' or looking for trouble your better off taking a month off from posting. I don't think either Scott or Sean sounded that way though Scott did say he just came off a 3 day workshop or something.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Cameron

[sean]

Hmmm, I do think it was mostly bad timing and misunderstanding actually.

 

Neimad, I didn't put it together that you are "shadow" over there on RMAX. Damn, you got the CST lingo down, man.

 

Ok, how about some more tedious clarification.

 

CST is a phenomenally cool system. It does what it advertises. I can see the reasoning behind trying to keep a system free of loaded, culturally specific terms. I am also not a big fan of trying to explain things in terms of chi or prana either. I rarely ever refer to these concepts in discussion or personal practice. I think it's much more effective to describe experience in detail without resorting unnecessarily to the terminology of traditions we are not immersed in. So instead of "dude, I felt my chi when I was meditating", an almost meaningless statement, one could say "A cold chill went up and down my spine" or "I felt a warm tingly in my throat."

 

I think the reason I went into this "debate" with the level of idealism that I did, is due to my excitement as of late with Ken Wilber's integral vision. He has created a framework that IMO, helps many many disciplines and spiritual traditions communicate with each other with very little confusion as to where the other is coming from. He is linking up Kabbalah teachers, philosophers, business coaches, Buddhists, psychologists, Christians, Sufis, dancers, physical culturists, doctors and on and on in this incredible way where each gets to keep their own tradition, but they can enter into really fruitful dialogue on where their teachings converge, what their teachings might lack, etc. And so the Christian priest walks away with an understanding of what the "Christian system" really excels at, and what it may want to include and what it may want to "outsource". The philosopher can see more clearly when a student may benefit from a hatha Yoga class, and the Yoga instructor can see more clearly when a student may need some philosophical distinctions.

 

It's with an excitement over this framework in mind that I saw the potential not for Scott to change his system at all, but to humbly dialogue about it's boundaries, areas that it doesn't want to move into, how much it is willing to tolerate discussion of subjective experience that may not be best approached from CST alone, etc.

 

There is a pretty cool talk on Integral Naked I was actually going to send Scott a link to a few months ago, and it probably would have led to a more civil, private discussion about this through email. There are two parts to the talk:

Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 1. Strength, Vitality, Transcendence.

Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 2. The Transformative Power of Strength Training

 

Unfortunately it requires a subscription to Integral Naked, which I think is $10 a month. IMO it's worth $100 a month as there is so much great content and it's updated regularly. (This is not an affiliate link btw, I don't make any money if you signup).

 

Anyway, so I'm not a big fan of bodybuilding but in the talk Ken Wilber talks with Shawn Phillips (the brother of Bill Phillips, author of Body-for-Life) on how body practices fit into an integral practice. The ideal of an Integral practice is that it should include body (physical), mind (framework), spirit (spiritual), and shadow (psychological). All esoterics aside, from a perspective of human health and happiness alone, I agree.

 

CST excels at the physical. Clearly. And CST outsources the nutrition component to Kathleen DesMaisons work. And obviously when you get in a car accident you go to the hospital, not to your local CST coach. I'm not being trite, just highlighting boundaries with obvious examples.

 

CST includes a mental framework that is probably more detailed and profound than most systems of exercise.

All while remaining secular which is quite a feat. Yet CST alone is not a complete life philosophy. Some great questions: Where are the borders of the CST framework? What can and can't it inform in one's life experience? How does it fit with and/or contradict other philosophies? When and where should a student look outside of CST for a wider framework? When is this just "mental masturbation" to avoid practice?

 

CST avoids directly addressing the spiritual dimension. Which is totally fine. Scott is saying this part is up to you. Wonderful. It's a deeply personal dimension, and somewhat of a can of worms. We see the depth to which spiritual discussions are carried out on this forum alone. It would be kind of wierd if all of sudden there were drawn out threads on the nature of sunyata on RMAX. Obviously I think these discussions are very important. A form of Jnana Yoga (which also includes framework building and shadow work). It's also important to recognize that spiritual practice and mental framework building are not the same thing, although they merge. A lot of what we do on the forums is more the latter, and also shadow work to an extent.

 

CST works with the shadow. More deeply than most American systems of exercise. One of the things that struck me about CST from the start was the encouragement to keep a journal and write down any thoughts, images and sensations that arise when you are performing various exercises. Powerful stuff. Yet obviously there are borders here as well. Do we send a paranoid schizophrenic to our local CST coach? Maybe after they have met with a mental health professional and given the necessary prescription medication, but not before. Likewise there are other softer priorities.

 

So really, this is what I was getting at. There were some other unfortunate elements to that thread that made things more complicated. Like that it may have appeared I was supporting Bodri's position, which I don't really. I think CST can open your "chi channels". And I also think this statement borders on meaninglessness.

 

Ok, but enough chat. This is a dead horse I think. Back to my practice.

 

 

Cheers,

Sean

[Cameron]

I don't bother talking about my workouts in realationship to spiritual practice since I have seen them as one for a long time now. When I briefly practiced with Roshi John Loori in NY I learned about his Eight Gates of Zen system which basically says everything you do is Zen. Whether it is actually doing zazen or work or art or body practice or study of sutras. Whatever it is you are doing in your life is a potential gateway to the gateless gate of zen satori.

 

But I also always heed what Loori said about enlightenment. He said, even in the golden age of zen in China, when the Emperor was a Buddhist. Even then, very, very few people practiced zen(much less became enlightened).

 

So, it's nice to talk about with friends who have the same kind of views but to bring this kind of stuff up with other people who have there own highly developed systems and concept(read:your debate with Scott)

 

For the most part I don't bother as it would seem like a waste of time.

 

But just like you said, ANY practice can become a gate to experiening the primordial witness and ultimately breaking the egg shell of the SELF. Whatever doing martial art, yoga, or gardening.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Cameron

[sonnon]

Hmmm, I do think it was mostly bad timing and misunderstanding actually.

 

Neimad, I didn't put it together that you are "shadow" over there on RMAX. Damn, you got the CST lingo down, man.

 

Ok, how about some more tedious clarification.

 

CST is a phenomenally cool system. It does what it advertises. I can see the reasoning behind trying to keep a system free of loaded, culturally specific terms. I am also not a big fan of trying to explain things in terms of chi or prana either. I rarely ever refer to these concepts in discussion or personal practice. I think it's much more effective to describe experience in detail without resorting unnecessarily to the terminology of traditions we are not immersed in. So instead of "dude, I felt my chi when I was meditating", an almost meaningless statement, one could say "A cold chill went up and down my spine" or "I felt a warm tingly in my throat."

 

I think the reason I went into this "debate" with the level of idealism that I did, is due to my excitement as of late with Ken Wilber's integral vision. He has created a framework that IMO, helps many many disciplines and spiritual traditions communicate with each other with very little confusion as to where the other is coming from. He is linking up Kabbalah teachers, philosophers, business coaches, Buddhists, psychologists, Christians, Sufis, dancers, physical culturists, doctors and on and on in this incredible way where each gets to keep their own tradition, but they can enter into really fruitful dialogue on where their teachings converge, what their teachings might lack, etc. And so the Christian priest walks away with an understanding of what the "Christian system" really excels at, and what it may want to include and what it may want to "outsource". The philosopher can see more clearly when a student may benefit from a hatha Yoga class, and the Yoga instructor can see more clearly when a student may need some philosophical distinctions.

 

It's with an excitement over this framework in mind that I saw the potential not for Scott to change his system at all, but to humbly dialogue about it's boundaries, areas that it doesn't want to move into, how much it is willing to tolerate discussion of subjective experience that may not be best approached from CST alone, etc.

 

There is a pretty cool talk on Integral Naked I was actually going to send Scott a link to a few months ago, and it probably would have led to a more civil, private discussion about this through email. There are two parts to the talk:

Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 1. Strength, Vitality, Transcendence.

Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 2. The Transformative Power of Strength Training

 

Unfortunately it requires a subscription to Integral Naked, which I think is $10 a month. IMO it's worth $100 a month as there is so much great content and it's updated regularly. (This is not an affiliate link btw, I don't make any money if you signup).

 

Anyway, so I'm not a big fan of bodybuilding but in the talk Ken Wilber talks with Shawn Phillips (the brother of Bill Phillips, author of Body-for-Life) on how body practices fit into an integral practice. The ideal of an Integral practice is that it should include body (physical), mind (framework), spirit (spiritual), and shadow (psychological). All esoterics aside, from a perspective of human health and happiness alone, I agree.

 

CST excels at the physical. Clearly. And CST outsources the nutrition component to Kathleen DesMaisons work. And obviously when you get in a car accident you go to the hospital, not to your local CST coach. I'm not being trite, just highlighting boundaries with obvious examples.

 

CST includes a mental framework that is probably more detailed and profound than most systems of exercise.

All while remaining secular which is quite a feat. Yet CST alone is not a complete life philosophy. Some great questions: Where are the borders of the CST framework? What can and can't it inform in one's life experience? How does it fit with and/or contradict other philosophies? When and where should a student look outside of CST for a wider framework? When is this just "mental masturbation" to avoid practice?

 

CST avoids directly addressing the spiritual dimension. Which is totally fine. Scott is saying this part is up to you. Wonderful. It's a deeply personal dimension, and somewhat of a can of worms. We see the depth to which spiritual discussions are carried out on this forum alone. It would be kind of wierd if all of sudden there were drawn out threads on the nature of sunyata on RMAX. Obviously I think these discussions are very important. A form of Jnana Yoga (which also includes framework building and shadow work). It's also important to recognize that spiritual practice and mental framework building are not the same thing, although they merge. A lot of what we do on the forums is more the latter, and also shadow work to an extent.

 

CST works with the shadow. More deeply than most American systems of exercise. One of the things that struck me about CST from the start was the encouragement to keep a journal and write down any thoughts, images and sensations that arise when you are performing various exercises. Powerful stuff. Yet obviously there are borders here as well. Do we send a paranoid schizophrenic to our local CST coach? Maybe after they have met with a mental health professional and given the necessary prescription medication, but not before. Likewise there are other softer priorities.

 

So really, this is what I was getting at. There were some other unfortunate elements to that thread that made things more complicated. Like that it may have appeared I was supporting Bodri's position, which I don't really. I think CST can open your "chi channels". And I also think this statement borders on meaninglessness.

 

Ok, but enough chat. This is a dead horse I think. Back to my practice.

Cheers,

Sean

Hope you don't mind me coming to you to resolve this issue.

Beautifully written, Sean.

I misunderstood your words, and more importantly the intention behind them. My apologies for any confusion I may have lent to the misunderstanding.

How I personally answer the above questions I keep in private, as I do not want to promote my personal beliefs which others may perhaps take as evangelistic dogma. I appreciate if others do the same on the RMAX forum so that they can invest their energy in the actual work, since those definitions tend to be culturally context specific as well as idiosyncratic. Unfortunately, being deliberately protective of cultural pluralism can be misunderstood as prohibitive of 'integrative' approaches, which in my opinion can be problematic (but that is a personal opinion having nothing to do with the purpose, intent or mission of RMAX, which is a culturally inclusive and individually egalitarian community).

Yes, CST can be used as a complete, stand-alone health system, but that doesn't mean that you must do so, nor does it address other religious-specific issues (and as your allusion above, nor does it address the medical, therapeutic and even to a degree, the nutrition spheres.) RMAX is a corporate sponsored community forum for question and answer discussion regarding its products and resources, only. In the future, we hope to ensure that those policies are well understood in advance to prevent this sort of misunderstanding again.

Keep up what you're doing over here.

Best wishes,

Scott Sonnon

[Cameron]

Scott is all class.