Andrew Sanchez572 said:I find tarot absolutely fascinating in all its nuances, even though I haven’t actually practiced anything involving tarot in such a structured way yet. However, I do have plans to dive in...
wiredbear2, you claim that most people simply aren't capable of experiencing true spiritual sexuality, yet in the next breath, you suggest that a spiritual being doesn't even require a physical medium 🤔 Are you truly so elevated spiritually that you no longer have any need for sexuality yourself? 😁 🙏
My point isn't about mere self-indulgence; it is about the construction of a pyramid—one must establish the foundation before building everything else. If that foundation is shaky, then the entire pyramid is essentially worthless...
In my previous post, I tried to clarify that I don't view sexuality or sex as some sort of tool used to achieve one thing or another, nor as a means to reach spirituality...
It’s a bit of a tricky question you're posing, and honestly, I'll leave you to ponder that uncertainty on your own... 😉
Because for me, I *am* sexuality... we breathe as one...
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Why do you use the word 'we'?
I believe you are perhaps mystifying both spirituality and sexuality, as well as their intersection, a bit too much. It is rather like suggesting that chanting is some sort of pre-spiritual activity for people. Well, that depends on who you ask. For someone who understands mantras and possesses the correct ones, it is not merely a matter of ease; rather, it serves as a genuine catalyst for spiritual advancement. The mantra itself is the tool for progress. The same principle applies to sex.
Furthermore, I feel there is a slight exaggeration regarding these romantic, partner-based experiences. Sexual magic and Tantra are not necessarily tethered to emotions, relationships, or similar things. While it is certainly lovely to possess such a discipline and to share it with another, it is primarily a practice of self-discipline.
It is because I am making the firm assertion that the vast majority of the population has absolutely no concept of what true sexuality actually entails, seeing it instead as nothing more than a purely primal, animalistic urge... While those rare instances of total union—transcending the mere physical plane—certainly exist and do occur, they are so infrequent that their statistical presence is almost negligible. Most people simply don't understand sex at all. 🙂 Simply satisfying a biological craving driven by hormones or other primitive impulses is not the ultimate purpose of sexuality...
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Why do you use the word 'we'?
I believe you are perhaps mystifying both spirituality and sexuality, as well as their intersection, a bit too much. It is rather like suggesting that chanting is some sort of pre-spiritual activity for people. Well, that depends on who you ask. For someone who understands mantras and possesses the correct ones, it is not merely a matter of ease; rather, it serves as a genuine catalyst for spiritual advancement. The mantra itself is the tool for progress. The same principle applies to sex.
Furthermore, I feel there is a slight exaggeration regarding these romantic, partner-based experiences. Sexual magic and Tantra are not necessarily tethered to emotions, relationships, or similar things. While it is certainly lovely to possess such a discipline and to share it with another, it is primarily a practice of self-discipline.
No, my statement isn't mystical in the slightest; it is quite frankly a matter of fact. I abandoned the pursuit of mysticism the very moment I truly discovered it... 😉
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Why do you use the word 'we'?
I believe you are perhaps mystifying both spirituality and sexuality, as well as their intersection, a bit too much. It is rather like suggesting that chanting is some sort of pre-spiritual activity for people. Well, that depends on who you ask. For someone who understands mantras and possesses the correct ones, it is not merely a matter of ease; rather, it serves as a genuine catalyst for spiritual advancement. The mantra itself is the tool for progress. The same principle applies to sex.
Furthermore, I feel there is a slight exaggeration regarding these romantic, partner-based experiences. Sexual magic and Tantra are not necessarily tethered to emotions, relationships, or similar things. While it is certainly lovely to possess such a discipline and to share it with another, it is primarily a practice of self-discipline.
You have a point there; it is indeed a vehicle. But my belief is that for a truly realized spiritual being, such things are no longer necessary... 🙂
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Why do you use the word 'we'?
I believe you are perhaps mystifying both spirituality and sexuality, as well as their intersection, a bit too much. It is rather like suggesting that chanting is some sort of pre-spiritual activity for people. Well, that depends on who you ask. For someone who understands mantras and possesses the correct ones, it is not merely a matter of ease; rather, it serves as a genuine catalyst for spiritual advancement. The mantra itself is the tool for progress. The same principle applies to sex.
Furthermore, I feel there is a slight exaggeration regarding these romantic, partner-based experiences. Sexual magic and Tantra are not necessarily tethered to emotions, relationships, or similar things. While it is certainly lovely to possess such a discipline and to share it with another, it is primarily a practice of self-discipline.
But you see, for me, sex is so much more than just a mere instrument... 😉
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Why do you use the word 'we'?
I believe you are perhaps mystifying both spirituality and sexuality, as well as their intersection, a bit too much. It is rather like suggesting that chanting is some sort of pre-spiritual activity for people. Well, that depends on who you ask. For someone who understands mantras and possesses the correct ones, it is not merely a matter of ease; rather, it serves as a genuine catalyst for spiritual advancement. The mantra itself is the tool for progress. The same principle applies to sex.
Furthermore, I feel there is a slight exaggeration regarding these romantic, partner-based experiences. Sexual magic and Tantra are not necessarily tethered to emotions, relationships, or similar things. While it is certainly lovely to possess such a discipline and to share it with another, it is primarily a practice of self-discipline.
Perhaps I’m exaggerating because, deep down, I don't want to be entirely self-sufficient—even though I know I could be quite easily if I truly wanted to... And while sexual magic might not demand emotion or connection with another person, I would argue categorically that tantra absolutely does... Self-discipline is something you need regardless, whether you are practicing magic or tantra...
hiddenhound3 said:Look, my perspective is that we are all inherently spiritual beings; it simply comes down to whether one chooses to prioritize that connection through intentional time and focus, or if they let it slide into the background.. Furthermore, sexuality itself is an incredibly fascinating and delicate landscape, shaped by a multitude of subconscious forces that most people aren't even aware exist.
I have to disagree—not everyone is actually spiritual. It seems to me that people just love to wrap themselves in that label and call themselves 'spiritual seekers,' but if you look closely, there are very few truly spiritual individuals out there, which is quite a shame, really.
That being said, I will concede one point: everyone does indeed hold the potential to become spiritual... 😉
I’ve been doing quite a bit of reflecting lately... It strikes me that very few people have actually experienced sexuality—true intimacy—on a level that transcends the purely physical, or even that raw, animalistic drive we often fall back on. It feels to me as though sexual connection in the Tantric sense remains an absolute mystery to the human race. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest this, though there are also countless reasons why we remain so disconnected from it. I suppose I am essentially offering a diagnosis of our species when it comes to our sexual nature. My dear fellow humans, you truly haven't the slightest clue what is actually happening here... I honestly believe we are stunted as sexual beings. And really, it isn't surprising if you take a look at how neglected we've become in the spiritual realm. We are fundamentally incomplete 😁
You simply cannot have meaningful, high-quality intimacy without spirituality, much like you can't expect flowers to bloom in a meadow without the warmth of sunlight. When I speak of spirituality, I am not referring to any organized religion or labeled dogma, but rather to the human capacity for a holistic, all-encompassing experience of reality—noticing all those small and large details that surround us. A person who hasn't achieved spiritual growth or self-realization simply isn't prepared to explore the true depths and vastness of sexual connection 😉
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Alright, but why would "triggering" arousal be considered something negative? I don't want to just repeat everything you already wrote earlier...
Secondly, this thread isn't actually about finding ways to provoke sexual urges; it’s about how to control and channel that sexual energy once it’s already present or lying dormant. Could you please try to stay on topic? Besides, you claimed that magic acts as a tool of violence against love. 😳 And then you went as far as to say that magic essentially shuts out spirituality.
I can somewhat understand why you wouldn't want to trigger lust, but it is quite unrealistic to assume that arousal must be exclusively self-induced. There is always an underlying desire to feel that way. Can you eat when you aren't hungry? By that logic, would you consider celibacy to be a form of violence as well?
I apologize for my rather rushed response to your first post; I am currently juggling two very heated debates in parallel, so my concentration isn't exactly at its peak right now.
Emily Bailey2, what have your own experiences been with deprivation? 😍
Look, everything is fine. I totally get where you're coming from—you need to cultivate a certain sexual energy to get your work done, and you're willing to stir things up to reach that state. By the way, what a ridiculous word to use, but I suppose I have no choice... 🙄 As for whether I can eat when I'm not hungry? Sure, I can, but it’s just not enjoyable... 😉 Do you see my point? It’s simply not the same thing. It lacks that spark. And is celibacy a form of violence? In a way, I'd say yes. But I really need more time to unpack that thought properly, and I have to head out now...
All the best, Andrew Sanchez572, and I truly wish you nothing but incredible, high-quality sex in November 2009. 🙂
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, that’s just raw instinct at work; I simply can't conjure something out of thin air if it isn't already there.
Are you capable of doing that? 🙂
Personally, I am perfectly capable of experiencing love even with myself...
Well, if you're wandering through the woods, I'll be taking the highway... 🙄 Instinct is something inherent to every single human being, a fundamental part of our very nature from birth, but that is fundamentally different from the actual energy that flows from that instinct—an energy that isn't always sitting right there inside you unless it's triggered by sexual stimulation or arousal... it simply isn't the same thing as the innate drive itself. 😉
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, that’s just raw instinct at work; I simply can't conjure something out of thin air if it isn't already there.
Are you capable of doing that? 🙂
Personally, I am perfectly capable of experiencing love even with myself...
So you're saying you can't? 😁
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, that’s just raw instinct at work; I simply can't conjure something out of thin air if it isn't already there.
Are you capable of doing that? 🙂
Personally, I am perfectly capable of experiencing love even with myself...
Bravo, 👍 truly... 😲 That is quite a feat...
If you would just take a moment to re-read my previous post... where I discussed the distinction between self-love (which, of course, encompasses making love to oneself) and the love we hold for another person... 😉
Are you implying that sexuality is exclusively a matter of partnership? Why would that be? Isn't it also an instinct, a drive for life, unadulterated creativity, and pure energy?
Besides, no one was talking about provoking sexuality here; rather, the discussion was about the exploitation and manipulation of sexual energy itself.
An accusation? Not at all; it is simply my own way of experiencing the simulation of sexuality. What kind of "arguments" could I possibly offer when we just view these things through such fundamentally different lenses? That certainly doesn't mean I find it unappealing or that I wouldn't be interested in hearing about your experiences... 😉 For me, I tend to wait for arousal to happen spontaneously, and then I just lean into it, whereas you seem to be 'working on it' as if it were some sort of ritualistic task... 😉 Personally, I can't really imagine masturbating unless I've already become turned on naturally—it just happens, you know? 😉 And once that sensation takes hold, I might eventually try to meditate through it or attempt to direct that energy somewhere... likely moving it up and down through the body... 😁 Just as a way to delay the orgasm... 😳
Are you implying that sexuality is exclusively a matter of partnership? Why would that be? Isn't it also an instinct, a drive for life, unadulterated creativity, and pure energy?
Besides, no one was talking about provoking sexuality here; rather, the discussion was about the exploitation and manipulation of sexual energy itself.
My God... what else could it be besides a matter of partnership? Even when you are alone, you are essentially acting as your own partner... or perhaps you're engaging with some sort of succubus... 😉 As I mentioned before, I am suggesting that sex stems from love, whether that is directed toward oneself or toward someone else... (And as for who that "someone else" might be... well, I'll let you fill in the blanks...) 😉
Are you implying that sexuality is exclusively a matter of partnership? Why would that be? Isn't it also an instinct, a drive for life, unadulterated creativity, and pure energy?
Besides, no one was talking about provoking sexuality here; rather, the discussion was about the exploitation and manipulation of sexual energy itself.
Are you implying that sexuality is exclusively a matter of partnership? Why would that be? Isn't it also an instinct, a drive for life, unadulterated creativity, and pure energy?
Besides, no one was talking about provoking sexuality here; rather, the discussion was about the exploitation and manipulation of sexual energy itself.
And what does "inciting sexuality" or "sexual energy"—whatever you want to call it—really mean in this context? ☕ To actually harness that kind of energy, you have to generate it first, right? So, how else are you going to conjure it up if not by provocation?
To me, sex feels like such an inherently spontaneous need that any attempt to artificially ramp up sexual energy or intentionally provoke arousal feels, quite frankly, like a crime against the sanctity, purity, and innocence of love—both the love we hold for ourselves and the connection we share with a partner... In my view, any kind of calculated manipulation in that direction (whether it's magic or similar practices) essentially shuts the door on true spirituality. It’s only through pure spontaneity, that raw desire, and genuine affection for oneself and one's partner that we can ever reach a state of true, unadulterated ecstasy. Ultimately, all those dense, heavy theories regarding sexuality just boil down to those two simple elements, stretched out into hundreds of pages of unnecessary prose.
Jeremy Palmer As specified by: Aside from the extensive works by Carl Jung, I haven't delved very deeply into the study of symbolism... But I found myself completely captivated once I learned how he deliberately surrendered himself to psychosis, guided by the principles found in the Tibetan Book of the Dead; he essentially chose to fracture his own psyche just to gain the ability to navigate those realms that remain forever hidden from the logical mind...
I haven't actually delved into the deep waters of Carl Jung’s actual written works—I haven't sat down with his books myself—but I have certainly spent quite a bit of time reading about him and the profound impact of his research... so, I suppose you could say my understanding is somewhat limited to the periphery of his ideas... I honestly feel that the subject of Carl Jung is so incredibly vast and layered that it deserves its own dedicated thread entirely... It really feels like it would be best if someone with a genuine passion for the material and a solid grasp of his theories were to spearhead a discussion, just so we can give such a profound topic the space and depth it truly merits...
Jeremy Palmer As if I haven't heard this all before... The intellect, in its relentless pursuit to force everything into a rigid mental grid—to build a system that feels transparent, orderly, and logically airtight—often ends up becoming an obstacle to true awakening. It creates a barrier against the deep, internal processes of consciousness that unfold through the subtle language of symbols and archetypes... because the insights we gain through those channels are rarely linear; they are fluid, intricate tapestries of psychic and spiritual truths that tend to defy logic entirely...
The intellect, which weaves itself into nearly every single one of our experiences and memories, constantly tries to apply logic to things that simply aren't ready to be understood yet—those messy, tangled threads that are still unraveling deep within our subconscious... This tendency only makes an immature problem even more convoluted and heavy, because the logical mind demands immediate resolution or a quick fix. It’s like trying to bite into a bright green apple and then complaining when your teeth start to ache... They are trying so desperately to force results out of thin air, completely ignoring the fact that everything is still very much in the processing stage... On the other hand, the subconscious and the psyche operate under an entirely different set of rules... they follow a logic that our rational minds struggle to grasp. They don't present us with abstract concepts; instead, they bombard us with vivid imagery and fragments of memory that represent our struggles. If we attempt to force cold, hard logic onto those images while we are still in that vulnerable state, we end up making a terrible mistake—we inadvertently identify ourselves with those painful snapshots. We essentially drag ourselves back to the very scene of the "crime," forcing ourselves to relive the trauma all over again, which is nothing short of agonizing... And so, we find ourselves caught in this endless, exhausting loop, spinning in circles without any way out, which is exactly why these deep-seated issues tend to linger for so long, remaining stubbornly unresolved... On the contrary, if we can manage to take a bit of a mental step back from those images and actually allow the irrational to exert its influence, we begin to observe certain subtle details that remain completely invisible to us when we are too deeply "in the frame"... We possess the ability to distill our raw, lived experiences into potent symbols, and once those symbols are forged, we can wield them at our own discretion and for our own ultimate benefit...
Edward Flores4, I am still sitting here eagerly awaiting your deep dive into symbols, especially after that incredibly lengthy introduction you’ve been building alongside hiddenhound3... I can tell you have an absolute mountain of insights waiting to be shared, so I find myself wondering why you're being so hesitant to jump in. The subject is symbols, after all, and everyone deserves their own space to explore the topic at their own pace, regardless of how much time it takes. None of us are quite brilliant enough to claim we hold all the answers, but that is precisely why we are gathered here—to engage in dialogue, to challenge one another, and perhaps... just perhaps... to actually learn something new.
So, please, just go for it and put your thoughts down on paper.
Jeremy Palmer said:Something like this, wiredbear2 🙂
Oh my... 🙂 We’ve been absolutely showered with such stunning imagery today. I didn't have anything quite suitable to contribute to the mix myself, so thank you, Jeremy, Uber 👍
The sheer allure of using symbols in how we communicate with almost everything in our existence... so why not start right at the foundation? Let's look at the basics—those elemental forces that surround us and actually make up who we are. Quincy began her journey with water, and I find myself wanting to build upon that by exploring air.
In many traditional cultures, air is viewed as this universal, fundamental life force. Everything that is living, truly organic, relies on breath (from the Latin *spirare*)...
What really interests me, though, is how the element of air is represented within spiritual and esoteric practices. Through the lens of human perception, air is inextricably linked to the mind, to intellect, to consciousness, learning, and communication. Within the duality of nature, it carries a masculine aspect. When looking at tools or weaponry, we see the staff, the knife, and the sword—all of which appear in Tarot decks as distinct symbols of the air element.
Symbolically, the element of air is also tied to childhood, the dawn, spring, and new beginnings. In terms of human senses, it belongs to smell. In the animal kingdom, it encompasses all flying creatures. As for instruments, think of the flute. The celestial armies of the gods are often invoked through figures like Athena, Zeus, Hermes, and Mercury in Greek mythology, just as we look to Thoth, Sh, Nut, and Horus in Egyptian traditions.
As for the astrological air signs, we have Libra, Gemini, and Aquarius—each possessing those dominant "airy" qualities like kindness, intellect, communicativeness, and sociability.
hiddenhound3 said:I disagree; dreams and phobias speak the symbolic language of the subconscious, and the subconscious remains a deeply fascinating realm for anyone on a spiritual path.😉
An icon does not necessitate that the subject was a real or unreal person. The "my Computer" icon on your desktop was never a living being, yet it is still referred to as an icon. You, unlike "my Computer," are a living individual, but your photograph serves as your icon regardless.
Symbolism is a complex field, and without a foundational understanding of semiotics, one will find it difficult to navigate.
Anything can serve as a symbol. I am not merely discussing the figure of Christ, but rather his ontological significance (as we all know, language can sometimes clarify and at other times obscure). It is not solely Jesus Christ who represents the self; there is also Buddha, and the Sun (along with all other solar deities). Beyond that, the intellectual level alone will never suffice to grasp the true nature of symbols. You possess a very strong capacity for intellectualization, but that is simply not enough and as a result, I find myself unable to convey my thoughts to you, or perhaps you are unable to grasp what I am attempting to explain.
Therefore, if you wish to contribute to this thread, please do so; I have no objection, and perhaps it might provide me with a clearer insight into your concept. However, let us not bicker over trivialities or insignificant details regarding whether Christ is a symbol or an icon, when to the entire American Christian population, Christ stands as the symbol of the way, the truth, and the life... so, shall we proceed? 😉
It is precisely the unspoken symbols that hold the greatest power. By that, I mean they aren't "logos"—visible, material things that everyone recognizes, such as a cross, a pentagram, or other drawn icons. Both Jesus and Buddha function as symbols. Of what? They represent their respective belief systems and the philosophies they anchor. This holds true for all the other myths and traditions found within our history. Every story concerning creation and the essence of humanity is told through symbolism. The entire Greek pantheon is essentially pure symbolism. For instance, the god Pan serves as a symbol of nature within the Roman pantheon. What matters is the narrative behind them. All the central figures in these stories are symbols of certain phenomena, endowed with human qualities. Isis represents creation, motherhood, transformation, change, intuition, and femininity. Osiris symbolizes strength, initiation, reason, light, and stability. Horus is the promise of life returning, the victory of light over darkness. Through these figures, one symbolically explains the duality of nature, the constant flux of life and death, and the cyclical movement of everything, whether we are looking at the Earth or the vast cosmos... In this way, humanity has woven its own myths regarding life and death, creation and decay, chaos and order—all through the medium of symbols.
Symbols... they represent such a vast, incredibly wide-reaching phenomenon within human society, almost entirely blanketed by them. There is this fundamental need to depict something, to conjure up an imaginary image—and to do so on a level that resonates with our collective perception. Symbols truly fulfill their purpose only when they are recognized by the masses, by the public at large, emerging from the very bedrock of a specific idea; just imagine if we could take "something"—an occurrence, an object, or an event—and replace it with a sign, or etch it into some material...
A symbol acts as a form of communication with our memories, while simultaneously being a form of communication in its own right. Its image or shape conveys information that we don't even need to process consciously, because that data already exists within our memory, tucked away in our subconscious. When we notice a certain symbol in our environment, all those stored images from the past rise to the surface of our consciousness—essentially everything we have "learned" about the context it represents. What is the very first thing that flashes through your mind when you see a cross, a crescent moon, or a six-pointed star? Christianity, Islam, Judaism... Or what about seeing the peace sign, the McDonald's golden arches, or the circled 'A'? The hippie movement, "junk food," 😁 or the anarchist movement... Symbols find their expression through signs and concrete shapes, manifesting in physical forms that hide a deeper story behind them.
On the other hand, there are symbols that we cannot perceive with our eyes, nor can we "possess" them as physical objects. The meaning of a symbol is metaphysical; it transcends the physical world entirely. If we pay close attention, we realize that every image within our consciousness and subconscious—our experience of the world, the values we hold and strive for, our "truths," our experiences—in short, everything spiritual that we possess, we also hold in some kind of symbolic form. In this sense, we are communicating with ourselves through symbols. In this context, we are talking about our archetypes—manifesting as ideas that we project "outward" toward the world, and "inward" as impressions and experiences gathered from the external world. These are mentally constructed "objects" of our consciousness and subconscious, which we recognize through our senses (both feeling and perception) and seek out within our memories using symbols as the key...
Symbols are only as powerful as our belief in them and the amount of energy we invest in them.
I don't know what to tell you. Florine is just... Florine. There’s no point in dancing around it. Some people just have that energy, and frankly, I'm too tired to deal with it today. It is what it is. James Allen2 says: Get out there and wander through the wild. Go extreme. Seek out the freezing cold, trek through the pitch black—whatever it takes. Honestly, nothing cures loneliness quite like the great outdoors. 🙂
Alright. I'll give it a shot. Maybe I’ll just head out into the wilderness and disappear. Get as far away from civilization as possible. Just vanish. 🙂 And what about all that meditation, tantra, and mantra stuff? All that spiritual fluff people swear by? Honestly, I wish I could just mutter some magic word and make all this nonsense disappear. Just one little spell and boom—problem solved. Life would be a hell of a lot easier if that were actually an option. I don't know about you, but I’m feeling a bit better after getting that tax filing done. Honestly, just glad that's over with. 🙂 I'm just messing with you guys. Mostly. Anyone else dealing with this same mess? Or am I just out here fighting this battle alone? Someone needs to tell me how she actually deals with him. Seriously.
There really are no magic bullets. If you go hunting for them, you might actually find one, but you risk losing yourself in the process. What I mean is, if you spend your life chasing those quick fixes, sooner or later, they’re going to end up finding you instead...
You aren't alone in this; so many people feel exactly the same way. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met someone who hasn't gone through this at some point, in one way or another. That sense of isolation, of being misunderstood, that feeling that there isn't anyone quite like you... well, the truth is, there isn't. You are on your own. Everything else really does come down to you... You mentioned that it's winter and the days are dark and gloomy, making it hard to find any motivation. Use this time for reflection—think about yourself, others, the world at large. Pick up a book. There is so much you can do when you're by yourself... It is only once you learn how to truly be alone—to sit in solitude and become a friend to yourself—that you will finally be able to accept other people for who they are, unique individuals just like you... 😉 That heavy feeling of loneliness will eventually fade, because in reality, you are never truly alone unless you choose to be... 🙂
Thank you so much for such an exhaustive and fascinating post...
Regardless, I feel we really need to discuss this somewhat indescribable state of being. It’s far removed from anything mystical or shrouded in mystery, even if the name itself seems to suggest otherwise... When I first encountered this concept in literature, I felt such a sense of relief—it was truly a joy to realize that this actually happens! To know that it wasn't just my own exclusive struggle, something happening only to me that left me wondering what to do with myself or whether what I was experiencing was even normal...
At the end of the day, who among us can truly claim to have passed through it? And who can claim they haven't? When I really sit with the thought... it feels foolish to try and measure or compare these experiences... We have all moved through something... But what exactly is it? We know—or at least, I know—that it was unpleasant. Not in the sense that it was painful, or that there was physical sensation or active suffering... because, in truth, there wasn't. It didn't hurt. It is that strange phenomenon where pain becomes so immense that it simply ceases to exist. There are so many reasons for this that you couldn't possibly isolate just one. You recognize them all, yet you can't pin down any single one... And it all unfolds deep within your most private self, entirely without your conscious knowledge, acting as a process that doesn't require your help, nor does it require your permission...
You mention love, though I'm not quite sure in what context. You speak of a "cry of love for acceptance." Whose love is it? It seemed to me that you are referring to love as a universal principle... Throughout your entire text, the idea I gathered is that TND is a non-individual phenomenon affecting the entire human race, intended to rectify the imbalances caused by a lack of love. Consequently, individuals undergo suffering as a way to make amends for that deficiency. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your meaning... A supra-personal dark night. Since humanity certainly isn't living in its golden age, one could frame it as a collective striving for "salvation," an attempt to emerge from the darkness...
And yet, the individual level is the only perspective from which we can truly discuss TND. You touched upon the existential identity crisis and how it often gets conflated with TND. Perhaps there is a thin line between the descriptions of these two experiences, but an existential crisis never emerges from the same depth as TND, nor is it quite so indescribable. An existential crisis has clearer outlines and leads to a different result...
I am trying to give shape to what TND actually is. Simply put, it is a dying—the process of an old personality passing away so that a new being can be born; a being that knows and feels, and returns to the starting point, but this time through understanding and accepting existence, both internally and externally...
Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.
Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.
That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two: 1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.
2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.
So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.
In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂
Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.
Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.
The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁
That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.
A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.
Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂
Looking at it from your perspective, of course 😉 It’s such a shame that we don't have any actual monks posting on this Forum to give us some true "insider" insight. While I am naturally skeptical of systems when it comes to spirituality, claiming that structure is inherently bad is just as much of a fallacy as claiming it's the only way. For instance, I could find plenty of reasons to be "against" organized spiritual communities, just as an honorable monk might provide me with compelling reasons "for" them... It is impossible to offer truly objective arguments for or against because every side approaches the matter from a deeply subjective standpoint...
One can contemplate anywhere, really. That means even in a prison cell, let alone a monastery. Or do you believe that contemplation isn't "real" if it happens within walls, or worse, behind iron bars?
Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.
Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.
That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two: 1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.
2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.
So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.
In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂
Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.
Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.
The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁
That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.
A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.
Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂
Why would you assume everyone in those places shares the same convictions? If that were true, then we here in the Spirituality section would all be thinking exactly alike too... and you know better than anyone how far from the truth that is... 😍
Wherever there are people, there is conflict... or cooperation. Dialogue, or monologue. Just because monks or clergy agree to live under the same roof and share the same infrastructure doesn't mean they think in unison. Perhaps they gathered around the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, following certain house rules that apply to everyone... but you simply cannot claim they hold identical beliefs regarding Jesus or Buddha... Let's set aside their centralized organization and how it dictates or restricts certain things; that shouldn't be the metric used to judge the quality of their work or their actual thoughts...
Edward Flores4 said:Some really bright thinkers have suggested that there’s basically only one major philosophical question left to ask: Whether or not to commit suicide?
And honestly, that’s where the whole irony of spirituality lies... people tend to look at it as a path toward a "good and happy life," chasing those states of consciousness you see laid out in myths and sacred texts. But if you look closer, spirituality actually suggests that life itself is the singular problem we have to solve—and death is, quite frankly, the ultimate solution to the problem of living, which is described in a pretty prosaic way throughout various scriptures and legends.
Is that a "love" for death...? I don't know... personally, I don't think so. But there is a certain level of comfort to be found when I sit and think about it. I'm starting to realize that the point of life isn't necessarily waiting for it to slowly fade away from you, but rather dying for a great idea at exactly the right moment... Maybe a Buddhist would call that meditating on "impermanence"... I usually just call it thinking, but I definitely find some solace in the fact that at least death is a certainty. 🙂
Only inexperienced souls—those who have barely scratched the surface of spiritual inquiry—perceive a "good and happy life" as the end goal. Not only that, but they view death as some sort of 'glitch' or 'problem' to be bypassed if they can just perform the right rituals or achieve certain milestones to earn 'eternal life.'
Isn't there a profound paradox in that? To crave not just life, but an endless, unchanging existence, while simultaneously sweeping death under the rug as something terrifying that must be avoided at all costs. Naturally, this leads these so-called 'spiritual seekers' to shun anything that isn't 'light and beautiful,' avoiding the shadow side of spirituality entirely. In doing so, they actually stifle their own evolution and nurture a fear that is both unnecessary and deeply counterproductive. They essentially become easy prey for 'soul hunters' masquerading as organized religions or self-styled 'gurus.' Now, I don't mean to imply that being a believer or a follower of a faith makes someone a mindless sheep incapable of grasping the essence of things, but rather that many fall into this trap...
Real growth happens on an individual level, far removed from the influence of dogmatic theories and external teachings. Each person must forge their own relationship with death and the act of fading from this world; once you liberate yourself from that fear, the transition becomes entirely natural, as organic as life itself, being its inevitable other half.
Edward Flores4 said:Some really bright thinkers have suggested that there’s basically only one major philosophical question left to ask: Whether or not to commit suicide?
And honestly, that’s where the whole irony of spirituality lies... people tend to look at it as a path toward a "good and happy life," chasing those states of consciousness you see laid out in myths and sacred texts. But if you look closer, spirituality actually suggests that life itself is the singular problem we have to solve—and death is, quite frankly, the ultimate solution to the problem of living, which is described in a pretty prosaic way throughout various scriptures and legends.
Is that a "love" for death...? I don't know... personally, I don't think so. But there is a certain level of comfort to be found when I sit and think about it. I'm starting to realize that the point of life isn't necessarily waiting for it to slowly fade away from you, but rather dying for a great idea at exactly the right moment... Maybe a Buddhist would call that meditating on "impermanence"... I usually just call it thinking, but I definitely find some solace in the fact that at least death is a certainty. 🙂
You really make me Wonder 🙂 I truly believe that only a truly profound soul could express something like that... 🙂
hiddenhound3 said:Regarding the dark night of the soul, Hamvas writes in his Cup of Curse about a state defined by festering wounds, dark imagery, anxiety, jealousy, envy, one's own internal toxins, the constant barking at one's own doorstep, chaos, an unmoored heart, and a mental turbulence bordering on madness... all resulting from a shift in consciousness and a loss of the vision of the Great Being. He describes this as a moment in life when one's very foundation is incinerated. He suggests that some people remain trapped in that void for half of their lives.
I have to tell you, Florin, that I always feel a sense of warmth whenever you bring up Bel Hamvas in your posts 🙂 It truly feels as though he managed to encompass every vital dimension of existence and spirituality within his writings. It isn't any surprise that he had so much to say about the "darkness," considering he was composing much of his work during the years of World War II. It reminds me quite a bit of how Tolkien approached the concept of evil through the shadows of Mordor.
