Posts by Thomas Nelson25

Maria Robinson2 said:I guess you could say a spiritual person is simply a spiritual person. There's your definition, I suppose. 🙂😉

Where did this idea come from that everyone is neurotic? People just snap when they're under pressure. That's why self-reflection and downtime are usually recommended.
I don't think we're talking about clinical patients here—unless I've misunderstood, which I might have.

So basically, there's a huge chance that the "weirdo" type is naturally solitary and spiritual, even if they aren't aware of it or don't see themselves that way. (Once you start looking inward, it leads to spirituality—even if it's just through psychological regression, for that matter).

Most people are neurotics—though maybe not someone like Bruce Adams—because we want one thing for our souls and then reality hits us in the face. Just imagine how hard it is for folks who don't bother with self-growth at all; they have zero clue who they are, yet they just accept life as it is, even while being miserable. Why do you think that is? (That's what a neurotic is, plain and simple).

Michael Castillo said:Exactly.

Everything we actually get from progress—humanity, civilization, science, culture, all that good stuff—mostly just lived inside the heads of people who were alone. Just totally solo, or maybe just feeling lonely even when they were stuck in a crowd.

Maria Robinson2 said:To me, being an 'oddball' feels more like that performative 'spirituality' that isn't actually spiritual at all.
That’s why I mentioned my previous point...

It really depends on whose yardstick you're using to measure 'normalcy'—or rather, what that word even signifies in today's world.
For example, I have some relatives like that—people who get labeled as eccentrics. Some live out in rural areas, others are in the heart of Chicago, and they all know each other since they're family, but... they can't stand one another. They're just incompatible, likely due to different personality traits—even 'lone wolves' have their differences, I guess.

And who’s actually qualified to say what spirituality is, or decide that being an oddball makes someone non-spiritual? These people spend their time alone—they're more "inwardly focused," if you will.😉 That doesn't mean they have mental health issues, but then again, let's be real—everyone's got some level of neurosis in them. Some people lean into it as a strength, while others just struggle through it.

bluemason3 said:In modern psychology, Freud has long since become an irrelevant anachronism—useful for history buffs, cultural theorists, or philosophers, but that's about it.

But if we're talking strictly about psychodiagnostics, my experience with different personality profiles suggests it varies wildly from person to person.

I've met people with traits more aligned with the autism spectrum who, based on our conversations, truly have no desire for social contact.

Then there are those with traits linked to affective disorders or social anxiety (think avoidant or schizoid types). They might develop certain behaviors as a coping mechanism, potentially fantasizing about much higher levels of social interaction than they can actually manage in reality. That's usually not the case for the first group.

Obviously, I'm not trying to diagnose every possible human behavior here. It doesn't make sense to label all introversion, just as it makes no sense to assume all extroverts are manic, dependent, narcissistic, or whatever else.

I just wanted to illustrate that the need for closeness isn't always present in every case; sometimes it's just expressed differently. I think it’s entirely possible for that drive to be "hardwired" at a lower level.

So, you're saying he's irrelevant as psychotherapy?! Not for art, culture, life, or philosophy, obviously. (In my book, other psych branches are just training neurotics... analysis goes much deeper... Jungian is the deepest)

It doesn't even have to be about a disorder (though it usually is—if you judge by the "normal" majority)—maybe it's about creative solitude, which is essential for a creator... and that's where Mr. Q comes in, saying sublimation is the best defense against nerves... and we're also interested in the psychotics here (forgetting how most spiritual seekers hide that fact like a snake hides its tail—even though without psychoanalytic therapy, there's no real spiritual growth)... can we even have great literature (imagination and the life of the "other") or philosophy without it? (the so-called "madness")

Solitude can come from sadness or trauma, but honestly, I don't care about that—I'm assuming we're staying on the topic of spirituality here... and that's about the soul... the solitude of the soul. Why do people run to the mountains to find themselves, or travel everywhere because they were lonely?

Now, closeness—for anyone who's actually gained any wisdom—is clearly mostly driven by interest (like what they call "heavenly" people). It can be a preference based on projections and stuff, leading us to like one person and not another. For instance, closeness ruins objectivity and truth... unless it's erotic, then it's right in its own way, even if it's often just an illusion—of the soul, I guess.

neonmason86 said:Maybe it’s just a matter of people who aren't desperate for constant social validation and are actually at ease being alone.
There is nothing wrong with being a social butterfly—people who genuinely love connecting with others, meeting new faces, and sharing moments together. But I think a good number of those highly outgoing types I know are actually quite needy, and the mere thought of spending a single day by themselves absolutely terrifies them.
Some people, on the other hand, draw their strength from solitude and quiet reflection to recharge for their next social outing...
I don't consider either group to be weirdos.

Psychology would argue everyone craves attention, though—what would Freud say about sublimation here? There’s definitely some truth to that...

But you gotta consider that some people just don't care for small talk or mindless socializing. Maybe they're just wise, or maybe that stuff drains them instead of fueling them... obviously, for others, it's a total necessity—like their brain needs it to function.

Maria Robinson2 said:Why label them weirdos? It wouldn't be strange if someone, say, just announced, "I'm done with people, and frankly, I've had enough of the global climate too—I'm building a wall, filling my shelves with books, and I don't need a TV or even a radio."

Maybe they're just unconventional...

then we're talking about unconventional folks...though being a "weirdo" is actually pretty standard (makes me wonder what those people even do when they're alone with their thoughts)...but still, they aren't exactly "normal"...for instance, I wouldn't call myself normal either...so what even is normalcy? (In the 21st century and the internet age, the bar is set way differently than it was twenty or thirty years ago)

and so on..

We're talking about weirdos here... honestly, though—it all comes down to what kind of person we're dealing with. Like, what they actually do when they're alone? That's the real kicker.

Honestly, those types drive me nuts—all that atheist stuff and reading those kinds of books... such narrow-minded views.

😁 I was being dead serious about that... honestly, hippie spirituality feels kind of questionable—it’s more like just getting high and chasing an ecstasy trip than anything else..

Think about it—asceticism, starving yourself, pushing yourself to total exhaustion... eventually you hit that state of sensory deprivation. But even after all that, Siddhartha ends up totally disappointed because it doesn't actually get him anywhere... he finally wakes up once he starts eating again..
That was his version of the "middle way"—whatever that means in Buddhist theory, which is basically just letting go of all your desires.

As for families, institutions, and legal rights... man, you can find stuff like that baked right into the Code of Hammurabi.

Maria Robinson2 said:So, it seems even those who didn't study him actually got the gist—aside from maybe a few lines of text. You know, the whole flower child thing and all that nonsense.

It's not for nothing they say it’s better to stay single than to get tied down only to end up viewing a spouse and kids as a weight around your neck. It’s almost as if—unfortunate as it is—it's become a common habit for people to believe in nothing at all, not even their own family unit. If that's the case, I guess the reason for all this suffering is easy enough to pinpoint: it's just the lack of respect people choose to harbor instead of actual respect.
That's probably about it. Best. 🙂

So he was a prince—meaning he felt existentially secure—and then, in that classic trope, he leaves for a few years and comes back wiser, like he's finally grasped the ultimate truth... I mean, Jesus was supposedly 33, so I guess that's just the magic age for messiahs.

When you look at reality today, just check the divorce stats and all the families struggling... honestly, it's better to be upfront and—I'll say it—realistic. (Even if some "family-oriented" types would call me immature for saying this.) Kids aren't kittens or puppies that you can just abandon; it's a massive responsibility. It requires giving up a certain amount of freedom, which is what being "tied down" actually means. It's a delicate thing because we're talking about our own genetics, or whatever... but it shouldn't be like that, and our egos end up getting projected onto our offspring.

What I see nowadays is just superficiality. Love isn't really a thing anymore—now everything is just called a "relationship," such an Americanism... plus, everyone wants to control everyone else for purely selfish reasons. There's zero sacrifice or responsibility, and those two things are literally the foundation of a family.

bluemason3 said:I wouldn't say you can pin down Tantra with a simple, textbook definition. If you wanted to capture everything it encompasses, you’d probably have to look at it through a historical lens—tracing the evolution of certain spiritual trends and teachings dating back to the Middle Ages. It essentially sets itself apart from the two other major pillars of influence, namely Vedic religion and shamanic traditions. You could try to account for outside influences too, but that’s a rabbit hole that gets complicated pretty quickly.

So, does everything we’ve stripped away through these eliminations suddenly become "tantric"? That’s really more of an authorial question than anything else—we're dealing with definitions where there is zero consensus. People often frame Tantra as this rebellious force that pushes back against orthodoxy or conservative spirituality. But then you look at the facts: even the most rigid, puritanical Vaishnava sects include Tantric texts right in their core canons. It's a bit of a contradiction.

Even in the oldest scriptures, Buddhists practiced meditations centered on death and decay long before Tantra ever entered the picture. That practice of leaving remains for birds in certain high-altitude regions—where cremation or burial isn't exactly easy due to the frozen ground—is likely a pre-Buddhist tradition. Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism, was imported from India where those customs weren't the norm. So, I wouldn't necessarily link that specific ritual to Tantra.

On the other hand, you see these radical Hindu leftists who have this tendency to hang out at cremation sites and perform rituals involving ladders. You could probably speculate that there’s some Buddhist influence creeping in there, even if they claim to be following entirely different myths and traditions—usually sticking to Saivism or Shaktism frameworks.

It’s all one big, centuries-old melting pot, which makes drawing clear lines or definitions nearly impossible today. It’s especially tricky with traditions like Tantra. You can't really point to it as a standalone religion with a fixed set of doctrines; instead, it functions more like a subtle current that weaves through various religious groups, blending and manifesting in different ways without ever truly existing as its own independent entity.

But then they claim knowledge is passed down from teacher to student?
What kind of knowledge would that even be if it isn't already available to us? That's what fascinates me—but I'm also a bit skeptical about it. I mean, sure, I'm totally open to the idea that there might be some deep wisdom out there that hasn't hit the internet yet...

As for the rest of your post, I've run into those ideas in books before so I didn't comment... personally, I think those techniques are pretty eye-opening, even if they seem a little dark to some people.

Maria Robinson2 said:?

Look, what I cited in my previous post came from a Buddhist text, not a Hindu one.

You know what’s actually quite bizarre? Take the whole story regarding the Buddha's reincarnation—around 623 BCE—where "the same guy" has a son when he's 29, an event he finds deeply troubling because it's only then that he realizes everyone, without exception, is subject to birth, sickness, and death.
Does a person really need thirty years of life to reach that conclusion? Not really—it’s honestly pretty unbelievable, even considering how many centuries passed before or after the era, that someone with that level of (lack of) emotional maturity would come to such a realization. Because it was only then, at that age, that he actually began his wandering search in the style of a truth seeker (concerning suffering and all that).

I wonder, what would modern psychology make of a personality like that? I mean, given that Buddhism is treated somewhat like a psychological method in this day and age.
Anyway, I guess I'm curious about your take...

calls them "shackles"—his wife and son... and hey, who knows, the guy was basically some ancient hippie😁

but those are the years where you actually mature and start thinking philosophically.

I'm forty and don't have a family... feels fine to me.

Can you give me a quick rundown on what Tantra is actually about? You mentioned it’s mystified—I get the whole magic through mantras thing, but it sounds more like a vehicle to steer the mind toward a specific state, right? I know a little bit—probably less than anyone else here, so bear with my "Tantric" questions—from reading some books written specifically for Americans. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if the author actually knows their stuff.

I read somewhere that Buddhists—like how Tibetans handle remains and leave them for vultures (saw a documentary once)—will sit near a corpse to cultivate awareness of impermanence and non-attachment. It's one of those key practices to free up the mind and body... honestly, it makes total sense.

Hey, what’s the deal with Tantra anyway? How is it actually better than yoga?

From what I've gathered—it's basically about pushing desire until you hit a breaking point. It's about awakening by leaning into all those taboo subjects. (Buddhists do the same thing, too—meditating on death and all those gritty details most people just try to ignore.)

Am I hitting the nail on the head here... or what?

Maria Robinson2 said:I don't mind that they split up—I assume every new generation of converts thinks they'll produce something fresh or more advanced. Though, whether we're even talking about agnosticism is debatable, given the passage from the Buddha-charita—a text dating back to the 2nd century CE—regarding the Buddha:

"Upon his birth, he stood firmly on the ground with both feet, took seven steps toward the north while a white canopy hovered perpetually above his head, and looking out toward the four corners of the world, he proclaimed in an incomparable voice: I am the supreme, the best, and the most significant in the entire world; this is my final birth, and I shall never be born again."

That "supreme, best, and most significant" part gives the impression he viewed himself as a deity equal to God, I guess.

It's probably not surprising that most scholars dismiss these accounts as mere legends and myths, considering they view the historical life of Buddha as something impossible to reconstruct.
If that's the case, these newer sects seem more preoccupied with psychology—since that serves as a substitute for "God and the divine"—while "attachment and suffering" remains the primary theme for the world's population, I suppose.

That’s just how Hinduism works—why are you even surprised by the poetic stuff? It’s the same deal with the Hebrews and the whole Messiah arrival thing. When you're dealing with an ancient religion, you have to find ways to explain things—especially when you look at all the different belief systems popping up in society. So many of them have faded away without anyone even realizing it. I actually read somewhere that even Buddhism came close to that point... honestly, the split into those two main branches probably caused a lot of that instability.
Look, there were tons of Buddhas before him—he was basically the last one standing. Now just imagine how many awakened souls are coming down the line... and who's to say they won't all be Messiahs? You can feel for people, sure, but you’ve gotta let the world spin on its own—critics call that kind of Buddhism "selfish," which is funny. Like, a Christian saint is all about sacrificing themselves for the masses, whereas a Buddhist just steps out of the way and walks their own path—kind of like a rhino, if you get what I mean. We're talking about that original, primal Buddhism here; it's got those ascetic vibes similar to Jainism and stuff. But at its core, it's all about that "Middle Way," and that's the kicker. It’s especially amplified by that fusion with Taoism and a cultural mindset that doesn't really lean into the irrational the way India does. In the case of Japan, maybe it gets a little too externalized or "turned inward," but hey, you can't deny the depth there.

Yeah, he’s even talking about how gods suffer—how they’re just as fleeting as we are. Sure, they might be "perfect" compared to us mere mortals, but they still have personalities, right? And because of that, they're stuck in the same illusion, trapped in that endless cycle of birth and death. They’re paying the price just like everyone else. Just imagine how much that hits home for people—especially for us rebels who can't help ourselves.

Some people might argue this follows the exact same playbook as Hindu traditions—you know, all that stuff about infinity and the illusion of the self. They’ll probably claim that since basically all Western Hermeticism borrowed concepts from over there, those traditions are just collectively deeper than anyone gives them credit for. You could even find similar vibes in other mythologies, like how the ancient Greeks talked about Chaos. Honestly, Greek influence actually bled into Buddhism right as it was starting to decline, creating this massive fusion that helped shape the religion we know today.

So now it looks like I’m some kind of Buddhist—maybe because of my comments, or whatever, just asking—but honestly, I'm just a sympathizer. When I was younger, I was way more into that raw, shamanic window into the world—you know, the whole journey vibe. But lately—now that I've actually started posting about this stuff—I feel like I'm slowly drifting back toward that philosophy... maybe through Zen. Anyway, have you ever read Jung? What's your take on him if you have?

Look, I'm just gonna lay it out for you right now. 😁 Honestly, I couldn't care less about tradition... like, at all. I don't really bother memorizing stuff from books—maybe a little bit here and there—but mostly I’m just looking for the esoteric side of things if it exists. I'm a hardcore minimalist, really. I'm only interested in what's happening "behind the scenes."

Honestly, if you want to get Buddhism, all you really need are the Four Noble Truths and those three basic facts about existence. You don't even have to sweat the Eightfold Path—it’s implied anyway, provided you actually grasp the core essence of the whole thing. At the end of the day, any religion is just going to lean heavily on ethics—it's all about morality because they use faith as a political tool.

I mean, just look at Siddhartha’s life before he became the Buddha—it’s just as symbolic. It was such a lonely, solitary path.

The books don't really say much about it... which is honestly pretty frustrating after grinding through nine books and all that time. Religion is mostly about morality. Buddhism (the Buddha talks about gods alongside suffering, but doesn't really touch the Alpha and Omega stuff—mostly because there's no permanent soul or "self") dives into metaphysics too, and you don't have to be a monk to get into that. Even a teacher is kind of unnecessary—no two minds are ever exactly the same anyway.

The Buddha mind is Buddhism, or maybe it's the other way around...

Bodhidharma is the archetype of Zen—that's the core essence of Buddhist metaphysics right there.

bluemason3, man, you hit the nail on the head right there—I'm totally with you. (Though, just to be clear, I’m no religious fanatic; I’ve mostly stuck to the Western approach—you know, a bit of Veljacic, leaning heavily into psychology like Jung or Maslow...) My only hang-up is that Buddhism can't really "evolve," even if it tries to pivot through New Age stuff like you mentioned. Either way, only a tiny handful of people will actually get it... even in places like China or Japan. Zen is just a much more direct shot to that awakened state.

At the end of the day, meditation is just a temporary tool anyway—it's about that clear mind, emptiness, impermanence, and all that deep psychology. As for organized religion and strict rituals? That's a whole different beast. Honestly, it can sometimes feel like more of a hurdle than a help—kind of like how teamwork can complicate things in life. Ultimately, the Buddha's path is a solo mission; the whole point of Buddhism is that archetype we talked about.
Like, look at mystical Christianity—you've got Christ.
And so on...

Maria Robinson2 said:Exactly, there is symbolism involved—symbolism representing transferred meaning or significance for those who established it—which certainly suggests I didn't just invent these terms, don't get me wrong.

The Gospels, however, aren't really the "secret" part; rather, the mystery until then was the Messiah himself—his total role, which caught humanity by surprise (people weren't exactly expecting that specific performance).
But, that isn't really the point here, though perhaps it serves as a general answer to your question...

Actually, mystics wouldn't necessarily be the ones receiving divine revelation, but rather those who philosophized about God or the gods—more or less on their own, yet also influenced by an environment that believed mystics understood these matters better. Consequently, someone obviously had to step into the role of spiritual leadership, since humanity has been crying out for it throughout history. It's that whole "explain our universal suffering to us because we can't find the causes ourselves" thing.

There is an interesting point regarding Buddhism. Essentially, the teachings identified as authentic weren't entrusted to the written word, but were passed down through the memory of disciples. Because of that, sacred Buddhist texts had to wait quite a long time before being recorded. Generations later, it’s more than fair to ask how much of it became diluted or started taking on different forms. Today, Buddhism has so many branches that, in principle, none of them specifically address the question of "suffering"—because, honestly, everyone knows that suffering is just a built-in part of life, regardless of Buddhism; it isn't like Buddhism is the only one trying to answer that question.

You didn't invent it—it's just the program.

I was thinking of the Gnostics.

And look, someone had to be inspired, right? People like mystics have that spark, so they're the ones who wrote the Bible and everything else... as for morality, pretty much any priest could write that stuff—just variations on the message of Christ. The real question is how much is authentic versus how much people just added in later... okay, fine. He chose the apostles and likely knew what the future held... essentially, the Roman Empire eventually adopted the faith as its own—for political reasons, obviously.

Nah, it wasn't—everything was written down and memorized, obviously (I think Indians use mnemonic techniques for rote learning like that... it's called mnemonics). It's simple, and there wasn't really anything to lose. Basically, the whole teaching almost fell apart, I think after three hundred years, and that's when they split up. Bodhidharma played a huge role there... you can look it up online if you care, but honestly, I don't. Only the essence matters. Buddha is an archetype (a mandala)—it's something you strive toward, and that's the only thing that counts. 😉

Maria Robinson2 said:What people notice or remember—well, that's out of my hands. I assume the author of Lord of the Rings felt similarly about the whole "eye" thing, so we're still dealing with that.

The "mystery" you’re referring to was actually exposed over 2,000 years ago, though why it remains so mysterious to so many today is a question in itself. I suppose it's because, as we mentioned before, people seem more inclined toward mysticism than clear skies—or whatever the phrase is. In that case, "suffering" would have its ultimate effect; some people, occasionally I think, seem unable to function without some sort of "attachment." It's possible that's why people get tattoos—leaving memories of pain on their skin as if they want to be reminded of it. Not really, obviously, but there are so many so-called spiritual transliterations that it ends up with people being pretty much lost on a planetary scale. Still, philosophy is always there for them—when everything else fails, it's always available. To me, it often feels like falling down a "rabbit hole."

And that eye? That's the Eye of Horus... and then you've got all those different versions. That secret society everyone talks about has an eye inside a triangle... it's all symbolism. Personally, I both love and hate it. You can interpret it however you want. Same goes for the fire in the movie, the eye, even the ring symbol and the whole plot... it's fiction, sure, but it seems to have elements of Druid or Celtic stuff. People claim the movie has a subliminal message, and honestly, given the world we live in, I wouldn't rule that out.

Well, regarding those secret events—who actually wrote them down? What does the Church say about it? From what I know, the Vatican Library has all sorts of books on its shelves, including those Hermetic or Gnostic texts from early Christian times—at least, that's what the believers call it. It's basically alchemy.

Then you've got Christian mystics who either wrote the Bible (or certain texts) or provided legitimacy to the Church. Then there are the saints who are living examples of Christ... while priests are the ones passing down the word, along with the apostles and the dogmatists.