Posts by Thomas Nelson25

piles, space, geometry... this stuff starts at 4

Susan Price30 said:True, I know Belkica (Beljki) has shared plenty of interesting posts and topics regarding Buddhism on this forum. 🙂

.

.

Yeah, I've read them—feels a little too orthodox for my taste, honestly...

Maria Robinson2 said:It’s an interesting song, I suppose—though how much theology is actually involved remains to be seen. I guess that Illuminati eye wasn't drawn there just for the aesthetic, though—if you catch my drift.

I suppose I’d have to re-read all that endless literature just to figure out what you don't identify with—which, naturally, I have no intention of doing. 🙂

Will we just continue to talk past one another? I suppose not—given that we’ve apparently reached the conclusion that suffering isn't exactly a desirable trait—despite that old cliché about how a little hardship helps people find meaning. It’s just... well, it isn't ideal when people start competing over who has it worse—because, let's face it, humans have a tendency to exaggerate everything—and that kind of exaggeration eventually leads to a global scale of misery.

Well, I suppose there isn't much to be done—we can't exactly go around reshaping the entire world, since we aren't exactly holding the levers of power... or anything of that sort.

To be honest, I don't actually know what that eye symbol means (or maybe I just forgot)... I just know the one in the triangle you see on some architecture.

Personally, Gnosticism, alchemy, and all those Christian esoteric things never really did it for me. I used to read them as "secret gospel" stuff, but to me, it all feels super speculative—just theories and "supposedly" conclusions and such. I've read the Bible plenty of times, but it doesn't hit deep for me either, nor does it answer my questions. Maybe it's revelation, but it still feels purely speculative—just dark archetypes.😁

Changing the world starts with changing people, and man, that is easier said than done.

Maria Robinson2 said:I wasn't aiming that at you or myself either; I just used "for instance" so I wouldn't keep saying "my neighbor" and end up stuttering... 😉

I didn't share that link just so we could enjoy the track; I shared it to ask you the question I posed earlier... because I suspect it's a "philosophy that isn't quite that"... that's how I categorize these things. Instead of pure philosophy, it feels more like reality itself—almost like a silent warning about future suffering, which ties back to our topic here. The song is old, and I've never actually read an interview where they commented on the lyrics, assuming a journalist even bothered to ask.
You know how it goes—musicians don't necessarily need to write out philosophies from spiritual texts; it's enough for them to express it through their music, since that influences the human mind all the same.

Anyway, maybe you get my point now... 🙂

Yeah, I noticed you're pretty serious about all this (even though theology isn't really my thing)—you aren't someone lacking knowledge or experience when it comes to transcendence.😉

My take on spirituality is more like naturalistic—nothing too heavy on foreknowledge or trying to align with some massive, grand concept... that's fine by me. But even that feels like too much if I were to identify with it... and I won't.

The lyrics—or the meaning behind the song—really resonate... if that's what you meant. 🙄

And it's not just musicians; poetry, if you're into that... I can wrap my head around some poets while others just don't click... but generally, poetry gets straight to the core.

Maria Robinson2 said:Listen, this whole idea that you can easily "see through" people—that’s a story in itself. Plenty of people thought they had me figured out, but they were consistently wrong. 😉

Mysticism? Oh, certainly. It’s very attractive to people. That’s why I prefer to speak plainly and clearly—I'm glad that doesn't bother you.

New Age? Well, that's its own kind of mysticism, I guess... If you're feeling up to explaining this to me...

... could you tell me if the songwriter is for or against it? Or rather, are they issuing a warning, or do they agree?
(I ask because no one has ever bothered to clarify things for me before, but maybe you could.)

I wasn't talking about myself or you specifically—just saying I'm not tied down to any specific set of teachings or anything. I might speculate on stuff, or maybe I'm subtly leaning toward something, but it's never permanent. One day I'm into one thing, the next day I've moved on.

For a believer, mysticism is usually that ecstatic union with God. I get the concept, but I feel like emotion can distort the experience. To me, truth shows up intuitively—it's not this dualistic "love" thing that maybe only high-level saints or priests can truly reach.

Don't get me wrong—prayer, contemplation, those mystical insights are great for a believer. It's just that not everyone is wired that way. For me, it doesn't work like that; my truth is more of an infinite, formless thing. (Which sounds pretty terrifying from a believer's perspective, especially a Christian one 😁)

It's a good song, but it's not quite my vibe (what do you think of Morrison or The Doors? That's more my speed)... personally, I lean toward something like classical, shamanic rhythms, or even Gregorian chants—mixed with ethnic vocals or traditional instruments and stuff like that. Basically, I'm looking for that spiritual soul in music—the actual experience.

Daniel Castillo11 said:Even the Buddhists themselves don't really bother using the term "mysticism," because, when you step back and look at it, the word doesn't actually carry much weight in their framework. It’s a bit like trying to use a specialized tool from a hardware store to fix a problem in a software program; it just isn't the right fit. Sure, you could find a way to make the concept make sense if you force it into a very specific, narrow context, but even then, that's such a minor point that it’s practically irrelevant to the actual practice of Buddhism.

When you consider the nature of mysticism, you might look at something like the Christian doctrine regarding the prayer of union found within the teachings of the saints. It’s a beautiful concept, really—that deep, internal movement toward oneness.

Unless you’re speaking specifically in terms of the transcendence of both the object and the subject—though even then, I find the term "mysticism" to be somewhat of a hollow concept—it doesn't carry much weight. It isn't really used in that particular sense, except perhaps in those more contemporary, comparative academic fantasies where people tend to throw every disparate idea into the same cluttered basket just to see if they stick.

It seems to me that the whole concept of a Koan is perfectly tailored to the Western mindset, if you think about it. After all, these ideas originated with the Chinese and the Japanese—whereas, in my view, the practitioners from the East tend toward a more irrational approach to life. We in the West are, at our very core, philosophers and rationalists; we are a people of deep introspection and quiet contemplation.

Not quite. A Koan isn't really designed to establish facts or perform an analysis. While people certainly use them that way, their ultimate purpose is to force you to acknowledge the sheer impotence of pure reason. That’s a bit different from the typical Western mindset, wouldn't you agree? Furthermore, when you look at that raw, genuine experience, a Koan actually works against any kind of affirmative or negative narrative; it lacks that rational dimension entirely, even if it begins by prompting a re-examination of things. Think of it this way: in the West, you might look at the Kabbalistic *hitbonenut*—that deep contemplation found within Chabad—where the goal is to transition from a purely analytical, mental form of meditation toward a state of emotional insight or even ecstasy. But a Koan doesn't seek to tether you to a story, a specific idea, a deity, a person, or anything else we might label as the absolute Truth. They don't possess a mystical structure because they are fundamentally deconstructive. Most philosophical narratives and methodologies are constructive in nature, aiming for a specific conclusion or a logical framework. A Koan, however, possesses no such logic; it simply moves right past it, bypassing common sense altogether.

The Western rational approach—think of the heavy intellectual frameworks laid down by someone like Kant—tends to funnel us toward very specific, rigid ideas and narratives. It’s almost inevitable that this process breeds a certain kind of attachment; we grab onto these concepts as if they were solid ground. A Koan, however, operates on an entirely different frequency. Regardless of whatever tradition you might be steeped in, it possesses this inherent counter-cultural energy. It works by bypassing those habitual mental tracks our everyday minds follow, where we feel this constant, restless urge to take every abstract thought and force it into a concrete, labeled box.

It follows that crafting one’s own personal Koan—if you can even manage to invent one from scratch—is where the real work lies. There is this common misconception, perhaps even baked into the very word Zen itself, that meditation is the ultimate end goal, when in reality, it is often far less vital than people assume. If we look at the bigger picture, the true objective is simply awakening, an opening of the eyes that can be triggered through countless different paths, often facilitated by various teachers who have actually achieved that state themselves. Of course, there is an overwhelming amount of speculation out there, and quite frankly, a lot of noise. My personal take is that Americans shouldn't feel the need to play dress-up or mimic the specific rituals and ceremonies of Eastern traditions just to find clarity. There are plenty of folks who realize this, and they understand that we have the capacity to cultivate our own uniquely American version of Zen, tailored to our own way of life.

If you look closely at the roots of Western thought, you’ll find that our closest neighbors to the world of Zen are actually the ancient Greek skeptics and the Pyrrhonists. It’s fascinating how these different eras and cultures start to bleed into one another when you dig deep enough. Take someone like Heraclitus, for instance; he was such a monumental figure that many of his core insights feel strikingly familiar. You could easily draw a direct line from his observations to the teachings found in Taoism or even the more modern Zen phrases we encounter today. It’s all part of that same continuous flow of understanding.

It is much like how those who follow Zen traditions operate; they tend to reject any strictly rational attempt to grasp at the Truth. Instead, they favor this direct, experiential immersion into the rhythms of daily life—a sort of total absorption where the boundaries begin to blur. Eventually, you reach a point where even the most fundamental dualities dissolve, leaving no distinction between the act of seeking and the state of simply being. There is this distinct Taoist undertone woven into the fabric of Zen that suggests the destination is actually the starting point. In essence, there isn't some profound ontological divide separating the peace of Nirvana from the chaos of our everyday struggles; they are one and the same.

The ancient Greek skeptics had a rather fascinating way of operating; they leaned heavily into debate, intricate narratives, and various intellectual gymnastics, though their ultimate objective was somewhat different from what we might expect today. Their true aim was to achieve ataraxia—that elusive state of mental tranquility or profound inner peace that comes from a radical, total doubt regarding all perceived truths. You see, by relentlessly exhausting the conceptual mind through every possible perspective and argument, one eventually reaches a point of complete surrender. It is in that moment of letting go, after the intellect has been thoroughly spent, that this deep sense of serenity finally takes hold.

I’ve been sitting here thinking about how you frequently lean on that term "reactive," and it strikes me that your usage carries a certain weight, much like the way one might describe a diuretic in a clinical setting—always working to flush things out or respond to an immediate stimulus. It’s an interesting linguistic parallel, isn't it? I find myself wondering what your take is on that connection.

I’ve never exactly been on speaking terms with Scientology. 🙂

In the vast landscape of psychological discourse, one will find that the concept of reactivity is invoked quite frequently, often serving as a cornerstone for understanding how we navigate our internal worlds. It’s one of those terms that seems to drift through academic papers and therapy sessions alike, acting as a sort of catch-all for the way we respond to the various stimuli life throws our way. I often think of it like a sudden thunderstorm rolling over the Midwest; you can see the clouds gathering, you can feel the pressure change in the air, and before you even realize what's happening, there is this immediate, forceful reaction to the environment around you. In the same vein, our psychological reactivity functions as that automatic, sometimes jarring response to external triggers, shaping much of our interpersonal dynamics and our ability to maintain a sense of inner equilibrium.

I haven't quite managed to sit down and work my way through Wittgenstein just yet, though I feel like I’ve grasped the core essence of his ideas. That being said, don't you think Heidegger would also have a significant place in this conversation?

It’s certainly possible... though, if I’m being honest, I feel like Wittgenstein’s whole way of thinking leans much more toward a Koan approach.

Basically, Zen moves from the "I" position and deals with the delusion of a mind that thinks enlightenment happens through dualism—you know, the mind speculating while the Truth is actually just simple. Classic Buddhism starts from that assumption (given its religious side) and aims for the same thing: self-realization..

Mysticism, in the sense of moving beyond dualism... there are all kinds of trances and mystical states, shaped by the collective unconscious (to use a Jungian term for someone identifying with a certain pattern).

Words and numbers don't mean much to me (though intuition does), so I'm a bit more free with this stuff—I'm pretty chaotic and creative myself, and honestly, I think Western science and logic are way too superficial. I get the concept of Zen... at least, I think I do.

You know, I'd say in America we have things like the "sound of one hand clapping" and such, but the real question is how each of us reacts to it—what actually happens when we focus (or rather, react) to something like that..

You explained that perfectly. I've read some stuff on Zen and Buddhism through Western interpretations, and even Japanese ones which are similar (mostly everyone over-explains until they end up saying nothing at all).. basically, Zen is a specific method.. Yin Yang acts as the centering, while the mental concept is Buddhist.

Daniel Castillo11 said:I am not entirely convinced that we can link Nirvana or Buddhism directly to mysticism. Zen, in particular, doesn't fit that mold, especially when you consider the Rinzai style of Koan. Mysticism is typically found within ecstatic religions—those emotionally charged doctrines centered around a divine personality or a deity, where there is a direct relationship between the worshiper and the worshiped. You might find traces of this in certain Buddhist traditions like Pure Land, but even there, it isn't true mysticism so much as it is classical devotion aimed at accumulating "merit" or karmic points.

Of course, perhaps the issue lies in how we choose to define the term "mysticism." I tend to stick to the more traditional definition.

Koans are certainly intriguing, though. They function as a type of paradoxical statement designed to reset the conceptual mind, leaving behind a sense of confusion or doubt in place of a verbal response. This state serves as an entry point into a direct experience of reality in the moment. Or, to put it more bluntly, a bit of a Mindfucker.🙂

If we were looking for the West's ultimate Mindfucker, it would likely be Wittgenstein, primarily due to his philosophical word games and his skepticism regarding the utility of language and words. He viewed his own methods as therapeutic, which feels quite similar to how certain schools of Zen attempt to quiet the reactive mind through paradox and absurdity.

Well, yeah—mysticism can be an emotional trance (like those religious fanatics out there) or it can be intuitive (think transcendence, or meditation leading to insight... though most people just want to learn how to trigger it on demand, right?). As for Zen, it is what it is. I know roughly what it's about, but I won't speculate too much.

A Koan is actually perfectly suited for the Western mindset. After all, the Chinese and Japanese came up with them (whereas the Hindus are more irrational types). Americans are essentially philosophers and rationalists—introverts, really—so working through one of those riddles (which you have to invent first, anyway) is right up our alley. Meditation is actually less useful than people think, even if the name "Zen" makes it seem like the core essence. Ultimately, the goal is awakening, and there are a million ways to induce that, depending on which enlightened teacher you follow. There's a lot of speculation there, for sure. My take? Americans can totally invent their own version of Zen (and some people actually do—they aren't just mimicking Chinese or Japanese culture and rituals).

Heh, I notice you use the word "reactive" a lot. Sounds a bit like Dianetics... what's your take on that?
Sadly, I haven't gotten around to reading Wittgenstein yet, but I've studied the gist of it. Don't you think Heidegger would fit in here too?

Maria Robinson2 said:Buddhism and Hinduism seem to have merged over in the East. Did you catch that segment on CNN's "World Reporter"? It was interesting—how Hindus aren't agnostics like Buddhists, yet business interests managed to fuse them together, or so the locals there claimed, I guess.

And why exactly did Western Buddhism decide it could implement things better? If that’s the case—which I guess implies it isn't actually following the original teachings—everything just gets muddled together globally until you end up with a hundred different branches where nobody understands cause and effect. Or rather, the consequence isn't "attachment"—it's "Suffering." At least by that definition, the whole world can agree; there isn't a single grown adult out there who wouldn't know what Suffering is.

I mean, I’m not exactly trying to philosophize—I’m just thinking out loud, I guess... 🙂

hm, haven't seen that specific episode, but I do watch those kinds of documentaries.

Like, Zen definitely works in the West (Westernized Koans would be pretty wild), just modified to fit our headspace... the core of Buddhism stays intact. It's super hard to turn Nirvana (satori) into some New Age thing... you can speculate, sure, but then it's not really it... we're talking about the mysticism of reality itself... it's easy to see through the Thomas Nelson25 types. 😉

Susan Price30 said:Honestly, that sounds like one of the worst ways to exist. I’d much rather endure suffering and learn something from it than just live like a vegetable. It’s better to love and lose than to never have loved at all—isn't that basically what Kant argued? It certainly feels that way right now.

Does Buddhism actually teach people to just live like plants—just vegetating without any drive and drifting aimlessly through life? 😁

Or am I totally misinterpreting what Buddhism is about?

Look, if we're treating it as philosophy—since it seems like us Americans are just better at applying Buddhism when we lean into it as a sort of practical psychology (especially if we've got that moderate temperament)—then sure, it works. But if it's religion...

...well, then it's connected (like Hinduism, for instance). But that kind of stuff—totally detaching from the world and crushing all willpower and desire? That just doesn't sit right with the American mindset or how we view the purpose of life.

Maria Robinson2 said:I'm not talking about Christianity in the West, the East, or anywhere else... in fact, I wasn't even talking about Christianity specifically, but rather a world that acts as a religion whenever it mistakenly thinks it isn't one.

Nietzsche was what you described—and an egocentrist at that—and people like him easily convince themselves they are charismatic leaders the world will follow. If the world has a low opinion of itself, it’s free to follow those global charlatans, but let's not forget that they too will receive their 'paycheck' based on their own labor—as it's said on Judgment Day.

So, yeah... that's the gist of it regarding these so-called 'supermen.'

The guy's got serious willpower—he's basically the future of this country.

Maria Robinson2 said:Well, I guess Nietzsche didn't know much about the Herd then.

You know—you were just another part of that global herd yourself, though you probably never cared to admit it.

So, what now? 🙂

Nothing much—we'll just go back to "loving one another like..." 😉

The herd... anyway, how do you explain the crisis facing Christianity and the West right now? (If we're forcing this whole superego/morality thing but getting nothing but backlash, then what kind of religion is it even?)

The man was a bit of a troubled philosopher-psychologist, really. He claimed "God is dead" and predicted that the future of America and the rest of the world would fall into nihilism—which pretty much happened—and that an "overman" would eventually emerge from the wreckage.

Maria Robinson2 said:It would be rather strange of me to deny that certain individuals have created hell on Earth.
But,
do we really need Buddhism to realize that?

Nietzsche called it the will of the weak—just a mindless herd.

Maria Robinson2 said:"Flying" is such a glamorous concept—though, I suppose, not everyone is actually cut out for it—especially when that sudden urge to take off stems from pure dissatisfaction.
I suppose.
The entire Earth is restless—everyone seems dissatisfied, and I guess there are very few happy people left on it—if such people even exist anymore—and most folks just want to change that status quo as fast as they can.

As for spirituality... maybe. 🙂

that drive to fly comes from freedom, not being unhappy... the world is actually great, it's just people who are usually hell on earth... let's be real about that.

Buddhism (and Western existentialism, too) just calls it like it is. 😉

Maria Robinson2 said:In short, how would you define freedom?

Not to make it sound like "we'll find activity within dissatisfaction and draw positive energy from there"—sorry, that sounds like some sci-fi movie plot where they don't actually "feed" on it, or maybe they do?

Speaking of sci-fi scenarios, I mentioned once that vampires actually have to eat; they aren't just the ones you see in movies. Some people caught my drift, others didn't—do you get what I'm getting at with that comparison?

flying... and trust me, that's not just a throwaway phrase.

Whether it's through struggle or pure joy—that's what drives me. It fuels my will, my creativity, the urge to build things... negativity is just stagnation, and honestly, that's never been my style.

Yeah, I definitely get what you mean.

Maria Robinson2 said:And you know how it goes—people call those who are "free" slaves to one thing or another. I might agree to a point, but... these aren't exactly shackles you can just slip off whenever you feel like it.

Humans get tied to things globally before they even realize they're connected. Still, I often find myself thinking about that old saying, "bad company ruins good character." I guess I've heard enough about human suffering, so I figured we might as well flip the script—see if there's anything else out there. If there happens to be something positive, we might as well focus on that.

Well, if you get what I mean, you get it.

Freedom is when you actually understand what it means—and that's not easy. It's a whole process, starting psychologically and then moving into the mystical stuff. I get it pretty well, but I'm still stuck in the matrix like everyone else... one day, though, I'll live entirely on my own terms.

Bad company is bad, I'm with you there. Everyone's always trying to force their will on someone else and draining your energy.

Life is positive—how could it not be? Dissatisfaction is just part of being alive (doesn't mean you have to be depressed or pessimistic or whatever). You can aim for something positive without it needing to be some big "faith" or "hope" thing... just find the action, the drive, the life in it, and go.

Maria Robinson2 said:Interesting. Are there free people wandering down the wrong paths, then?
Look, everyone is free—even those following the rules, I suppose.

From the time we're kids, we're taught to be self-sufficient. Then eventually, we run into people who actually want to "take care" of us—which, naturally, feels intrusive, so we just dig our heels in. Isn't that how it works?

Not everyone is free—hardly anyone can honestly claim that.

That's the truth right there.

Stop obsessing over everyone else and start boosting that ego... learn how to be a little cynical—do it with a smile and just enjoy the ride. It’ll help balance out the group dynamic.

Maria Robinson2 said:Why would I? Do you honestly think you're the one looking out for me? As if my problems aren't significant enough compared to yours—though, I suppose, who can really rely on anyone else when you're left out in the cold by someone else's indifference, shivering away before you even have a chance to freeze...
(like I said, people are just scattered in drawers, though the drawers aren't even shut—since I'm not exactly one of those long-haul truckers, you know, driving across the States with frozen cargo) and all that nonsense.

Because usually, people try to nudge the lost souls back onto the "right path."

Just go find a woman who actually fits your vibe... someone where you can be the one in charge... or at least feel like it—since, let's face it, women usually have the upper hand psychologically. Based on how you described her, it sounds like you were just getting played here.

Maria Robinson2 said:Actually, I don't label anyone by religion—not even when it comes to those online theology forums—I'm always telling them to stay out of those certain spheres, but apparently, nobody listens to me. So be it.

Anyway... I don't put people in boxes. Or, if I do, I leave the drawer open—so they can step out whenever they feel like it, of their own accord.

As for that attachment to suffering... there's that old saying, "if you go looking for storm clouds, you'll surely find them." Seems pretty accurate, doesn't it?

Wait, so you're actually worried about me? 😁