Posts by Casey Gomez

I get it, those ads will eventually give you a third eye. And a nasty one at that. 😲 But look, this isn't a thread about advertising, nor is it a PDF report on the subject. To avoid trolling any further...

I was recently reminded watching a video of how similarly the wise Oleg Maštruko once wrote. He’s a columnist for Bug magazine. He primarily discusses Facebook (though it isn't the only platform, is it?) as a modern phenomenon that paralyzes human willpower. The root cause is a phenomenological satisfaction of desires and needs through the imaginative projection of them onto others via social media, achieving nothing more than an ephemeral sense of gratification.
By "liking"—a term that drives a man toward a sort of mental knockout—one engages in the masturbation of unfulfilled plans and ideals that will never take root. Due to the intoxicating inertia provided by a recliner in synergistic interference with daydreaming, man alienates himself from reality and slowly slides into a dull conformism.
Every form of utilitarianism, including this latest iteration creeping in like a cancer by blurring empirical reality, trivializes human temporality and further obstructs our existential duty toward one another.

It is entirely possible for a person to feel "lesser" upon realizing how difficult it is to meet their own lofty standards, especially when the bar is set impossibly high. On top of that, constant self-reflection tends to only intensify that sense of inadequacy. True personal growth requires both conscious awareness and the willingness to embrace one's own Shadow ( Jung ).

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I heard that Richard Feynman once tried using fasting and specific meditative exercises to trigger altered states of consciousness. He wasn't particularly thrilled with the results, so he moved on to LSD. He mentioned it was a hell of a lot better than starving yourself and turning your brain upside down. 😲😁

http://www.nytimes.com/after5/drugs-...experiences-250357

I have a friend who tried fasting a few times. He told me it just wasn't his thing because all it did was leave him feeling angry, unfocused, sensitive, and irritable...
And then there's another guy I know with cancer who's trying to treat it with a raw food diet. Now, suddenly, raw food is his greatest joy. In reality, it isn't "joy," but he's convinced himself it's his salvation. As for spirituality? At this rate, he's on the fast track to believing in Santa Claus.😲
The thing is, the human brain is incredibly adaptable—maybe even too much so. It’s highly suggestible. If we fall into some bizarre, uncomfortable ritual, our minds can easily spin a narrative that these habits are actually beneficial or essential for us.
Now, if we want to be a bit pedantic about it—and I know, I know—historical records don't exactly paint the medieval flagellants as paragons of spiritual wisdom. Truth be told, they were mostly just religious fanatics and zealots losing their grip.
Still, there might be some merit to finding value in asceticism:

Take Ludwig van Beethoven, for example. He used to develop his most brilliant ideas right in the bathroom. Even after he lost his hearing, he became one of the most influential composers in history. I read this account once where he’d just stand over the sink, splashing water over his hands, leaning in close, and mumbling melodies under his breath all at once. Then, he’d pace around the room, eyes rolling, scribbling down notes, before circling back to the water and the singing.

And now we’re supposed to be afraid of water too? Just because someone starts hallucinating? Give me a break.

I have a friend who attempted fasting a few times. He concluded it simply wasn't for him because the experience left him feeling nothing but irritable, unfocused, and incredibly moody.

That’s simply the body's reaction when blood sugar levels drop too low.

Another guy is dealing with cancer and thinks he can cure it by eating nothing but raw food. Now, he’s convinced himself that this diet is some kind of culinary breakthrough. It isn't actually enjoyable, but he's successfully brainwashed himself into believing that this lifestyle is his salvation.

When you're backed into a corner like that, everyone just claws their way out however they can.

Ludwig van Beethoven would often hammer out his greatest ideas right in the bathroom. Even after losing his hearing, he managed to become one of the most influential composers on the planet. He’d stand over the sink, splashing water over his hands, leaning in close while humming melodies that were barely intelligible. Then he’d pace around the room, eyes rolling, scribbling down musical notes, only to return to the ritual of splashing water and singing.

I wasn't aware of that.😲

...serve to shift one's perception and state of consciousness, offering a brief reprieve from the crushing boredom of daily existence. Life's various setbacks, coupled with the sheer weight of monotony, tend to drown any sense of optimism or spiritual clarity in a bleak, gray void of mindless suffering.
Alright, maybe that was a bit dramatic.
Still, a person can find a certain satisfaction in the clarity of their own spirit—in that resigned refusal to chase the illusions of perceived reality—and take pride, if only internally, in their own resolve.
Therefore, the imperative lies in sobriety; let imagination go to hell. Or so they say, but one must actually put in the work to experience anything else, otherwise, what's even the point of me explaining this?
The solution is psychophysical training. It’s about finding self-satisfaction through a sense of superiority—not over other people, because that's a misguided path, but over life's hardships and its endless desires.

Making a sudden leap from riding a horse to walking on foot is bound to kill your motivation, so you really ought to cultivate detachment gradually rather than rushing headlong into it like a headless fly.
An ascetic lifestyle is essential for moral progress because it effectively strips away selfishness.
Something else required—which I haven't mentioned yet—is an indifferent approach to the ambiguity of pleasure and pain. In short, maintain a sense of apathy toward both enjoyment and discomfort. You have to accept both sides, as they are inextricably linked like Siamese twins.
Practically speaking, you can start with your diet. Consume foods that are good for your body even if they taste mediocre; if you aren't struggling to make ends meet, perhaps slip a larger bill to a homeless person on the street (it won't hurt you much if you simply forget you ever gave it, especially since everything we possess is ultimately granted to us by someone else, and to them, that money might mean a six-pack or a stack of cash to ease their own suffering).
For instance, when you're walking down the street in the summer and a fresh tuna fillet passes by, consciously perceive the urge to follow it with your eyes. Focus on that phenomenon within your consciousness as a present reality, shifting your attention away from the fish as a physical object on the road and onto the sensation of desire itself, gently quieting the flame so the water doesn't boil over. Don't try to extinguish the desire entirely, though; that’s impossible, and if you don't keep it simmering, it will just snap back at you.
There is plenty more to it. I won't bore you with further details.

When I first started posting about the ascetic lifestyle using those specific connotations, I didn't anticipate this level of widespread misunderstanding. Perhaps my delivery lacked clarity, or perhaps your collective backgrounds in studying spirituality are simply so divergent from mine that we're speaking different languages—though I find that distinction somewhat baffling.🤔It is evident that most perspectives here are rooted in monotheistic worldviews, whereas I am an atheist.
I had expected to encounter someone possessing both theoretical knowledge and practical experience on the subject, yet apparently, no such person exists. It seems those with actual substance tend to avoid engaging in empty chatter on internet forums.😬
My personal stance regarding the ascetic path is essentially apodictic; it isn't derived from lived experience so much as it stems from an a priori objectivism—a stubborn desire to remain consistent with logical conclusions, regardless of how unpleasant they may be.
Ultimately, this isn't merely a matter of morality or subjective idealism; it is fundamentally a question of neurobiology.😳

mistygull16 said:Take the Aghoris, for instance. They’ve got to drink booze endlessly, smoke weed, eat corpses and waste... hanging out with dead bodies and all that...

(don't watch this one unless you're tough enough)

https://www.google.com/search?q=aghor...w=1920&bih=955

And does it really have to follow that specific order? 🤔 You’d think they would go for the sex first and then feast. 😲 Though, granted, weed definitely works up an appetite, and when you've got a fresh corpse sitting right next to you... 😲 There is something fundamentally broken about that sequence of events. 🤔

Dana Brooks3 said:🤔 WTF? 😬
My point is that material things aren't an inherent constraint.
You're trying to solve this conflict through logic and theory—but you can't, because you can't reconcile an ideal with objective reality (which seems to be the root of all your questions and premises).
I am talking about the subjective interpretation and valuation of the idea of asceticism. The context where the ideal exists is different from the context in which most people actually live.
I'm discussing the prerequisites for even starting a conversation about achieving spiritual asceticism—the quenching of desire.
To rationalize here means we can't discuss who is willing to go how far (the start of our topic) until we understand why or how it would even be possible for a regular person to do so...
And I'm not saying asceticism is about material deprivation itself—quite the opposite. So your question about privilege doesn't really make sense to me.

I don't follow what you mean by the bolded part.

I misread the situation slightly. My apologies for the tone. 😬
Quincy:

I am stating quite clearly that material constraints are not some inherent limitation that dictates one's destiny.

It’s clear that this is the medium we live in.
Quincy:

You’re attempting to resolve a conflict using nothing but intellect and theory—an exercise in futility, quite frankly. It is impossible because you are fundamentally incapable of reconciling your lofty ideals with objective reality. I suppose that explains the endless stream of questions and premises cluttering up your opening post. I am discussing the subjective interpretation here—specifically, how we value the concept of asceticism. The context in which this ideal exists is fundamentally at odds with the reality in which most people actually live their lives.

The ideal isn't some subjective whim. It is an intrinsic part of our very being. At its core, the ideal functions as an archetypal entity—a psychological constant woven into our nature that manifests in the physical world through images like the "wise man." Religious figures serve as prime examples of this paradigm. Before he renounced material wealth, Buddha was a man of immense fortune; similarly, Christ was confronted in the desert with the temptation of all the world's riches if he would only bow down. Therefore, this ideal—and I am referring to the totality of it, not just the ascetic aspects—is almost always unattainable. It may be reached by a rare few, but it remains a fundamental imperative.

Quincy:

Rationalization, in this particular context, implies that we cannot even begin to discuss who is willing to go how far before we truly grasp why—and indeed, how—such a thing would ever be possible for a human being; which, for most people, is exactly what I took to be the core question in the introduction.

I don't put any stock in the masses. I only believe in the individual. It’s rare enough to find someone who actually asks a question, even rarer to find those who attempt to live, and an even smaller fraction of people who truly exist.
Quincy:

Look, I am not suggesting that asceticism is about material deprivation in the traditional sense—in fact, it is quite the exact opposite—so your question regarding whether I receive some sort of special treatment is entirely nonsensical.

The definition of asceticism remains somewhat murky given its various connotations, so you simply cannot alter the core meaning of the term.
Quincy:

I fail to grasp the point you’re trying to make in the bolded section.

Well, my brain has officially checked out again. 😲

Dana Brooks3 said:Poverty alone doesn't corrupt a person; that isn't necessarily true...
It’s not about how much someone possesses, but rather their relationship to those possessions. Enjoying life doesn't automatically mean you are serving it.

People who actually struggle to build something aren't usually lazy or weak-willed.
They end up being better at distinguishing material wealth from spiritual value, which gives them an edge over those who deny one or the other entirely.
There are people raised in total poverty with strong spiritual foundations, yet when they finally encounter the beauty of material things and physical pleasures, their entire value system can shatter and lead to corruption. To me, that isn't proof that matter itself is inherently corrupting. It just shows that you can't truly care for your soul if you dismiss the physical world as worthless. If you can recognize its value for yourself and your own needs, then you can maintain a healthy relationship with it without letting it compromise your values.
Just because certain comforts have become standard doesn't mean a person has lost their way spiritually by enjoying them. Circumstances change, and the goal is to figure out how to value things in a way that protects your identity and integrity.

Asceticism is limited to specific groups and is often impossible for most people to achieve. If it becomes a requirement, it's only for a tiny minority. For everyone else, it serves more as an inspiration or a guiding image rather than a lifestyle. The ideal of the ascetic rejecting worldly goods is an image found after reaching a certain realization, not a promise of enlightenment gained through forced deprivation. This likely ties back to our instincts—the innate drive to overcome what is fleeting and perishable.

What I mean is, giving something up only makes sense once you understand the connection between your desires and how you satisfy them through material means. That's when it stops being about unhealthy "sacrifice."

You’re just rationalizing. Go ahead, explain how asceticism could possibly be a luxury in a world driven by pure greed and gluttony. 🙂 Asceticism is strictly a state of mind. It’s nothing more than how your brain perceives what is desirable versus undesirable, or the visible versus the invisible. Tell me, can you even detect the infrared spectrum of a rattlesnake? Comfort is simply a mental state.

Spiritual fulfillment is inherently paradoxical. True "enjoyment" stems from a total resignation to the unyielding rigidity of reality, yet resignation itself is an indifferent emotion. It is through this very apathy that one achieves a "transcendent spirit"—a state of stillness amidst the encroaching storm. That is spiritual sublimity in a nutshell. Anyway, I don't care if you've all had your drinks yet or not. For heaven's sake, I’m already heading out on foot to walk all the way down to downtown, so feel free to sit there and ponder your little lives. Perhaps our paths will cross in a moment of profound convergence, driven by the penetrating reflectivity of self-actualization. And so on. 😲

You know what? Forget all that pleasantry. Let's just grab some drinks and get this party started together—if you'll let me be the one to lead the charge.

silentwolf192 said:Material enjoyment isn't some kind of roadblock to spiritual growth, if anything, it’s actually quite the opposite

Obviously. I always enjoy uploading that massive video where Ayrton Senna encounters God while driving a pack of cars. Set it to full screen for the truly transcendental experience. 👍

They were right there—I think I already shared the links to those people who were basically advocating for living like animals. And now, suddenly, these self-proclaimed wise Stoics have figured out they can actually enjoy all the perks of life, provided they follow one little rule: go ahead and indulge, but just don't get attached. That way, if everything gets stripped away, they won't feel a thing. What a convenient loophole.
It’s like that old American curse we wish on our neighbors: "😳May he have it, lose it, get it back, and lose it again.
"

Let me clarify my position. I realize I’ve been a bit vague—I wasn't even trying to be difficult. Honestly, who can make sense of any of this? I've sharpened my pen, dipped it in ink, and thinned it out just enough so it glides a little smoother. Just kidding. No big deal. It’s not about me; it’s about the stance itself.
Humans are fragile creatures. I see it all the time. A tiny vessel in the brain bursts, a blockage occurs, some driver coming the other way is messing with his radio or fumbling for his phone after slamming on the brakes too hard, and suddenly someone is thrown from their seat. They aren't at fault; they were just struck by the unpredictable claws of fate. It isn't always fatal. The morning news reports more severe injuries based on information from the Department of Justice. Information, that is. Behind those words lies someone's actual destiny. An incompetent technician in the ER ruins their life forever. After him, the doctors follow suit permanently. The chain reaction slides right across a metal window.
The truth is, people take their health, the health of their wives, their spouses, or their children—as Kubrick once pointed out—for granted. Their home, their car; it's all right here. Though it's all temporary.
Everything looks great; we are striving toward the European Union, aiming for a civilized culture with the pleasant aroma of Napa Valley oaks, better pay, a higher standard of living, leather seats, and extra features.
But most people remain miserable, far beyond our sight. Look at the steel grates on the skyscrapers where Apple factory workers jump from windows straight onto the hard concrete below. That's bad PR—not the Hollywood kind. Even the cattle have revolted, leaving the calves standing there bewildered. It takes a man longer to find his footing.
It is what they call Samsara. Our legacy is inevitable. Circumstances have handed you a keyboard under a lamp right now instead of a hammer against a stone. You claim to be adults, responsible for yourselves, but I am thinking of the immature ones. The world is a playground for pariahs.
So. Perhaps that's a bit clearer now.
Besides, it's spring. It's warm outside. Women are feeling that seasonal heat again. 😲 Desire is a heavy burden. I'm giving it away for free. I'll even pay you to take it; just use it, carry it, and don't you dare try to return it. Toss it when you're done.

Oh, and imagine a cozy little shack made of straw and mud in the middle of nowhere. I might just set up a military-grade wideband antenna. Maybe I'll keep that extra suction nozzle too.
I have to go mow the lawn now.

casualtiger2 said:So, they say the spirit is "non-material." If that's the case—how is physical matter supposed to touch it in the first place?

Almost every religious text out there hits the same note—this idea that you have to ditch your material possessions if you want to actually live a meaningful life, whether you're looking at it from a spiritual or just a practical standpoint. It’s basically become the ultimate idealistic paradigm.

So, how exactly do you pull off that whole "spiritual growth imperative" when you're surrounded by stuff? I mean—if Jesus Christ had access to high-speed internet, would he have even bothered becoming who he was? Think about it. How do you handle the laptop, the fridge, the washing machine, the heater, or the stove? What about your house, your bed, your car, your clothes, or your sneakers? Then there's the food situation—everything from basic groceries to a jar of Nutella—not to mention soap, the bathroom, your phone, intimacy, or even those modern diapers (because if you’re still using cloth, you definitely need that washing machine). And don't get me started on soccer balls and all that other sports gear. How does any of that fit into the "ascetic" picture?
Sure, it works in theory—but honestly, a real-world example would be way more helpful.

I am discussing semantic differentiation. Regarding the concept of contact: how exactly is it that two protons don't simply annihilate one another upon impact, given that they both carry the exact same charge? 😲 Look, I am strictly addressing the ideological aspect here.

How exactly does one implement this supposed "ascetic imperative of spiritual development" when it comes to computing?

.
Just think about it. 😲
I can't provide a specific example right now, but I’m certainly giving it some thought.

Scott Miller4 said:I’m not entirely sure I follow what you're actually getting at here; it’s a bit tough to pin down your main point from just the opening post.

The concept of asceticism is pretty interesting to me, especially when you look at how it might actually boost health or general human functionality. Then again, asceticism is basically a form of suffering—it’s essentially the intentional decision to deny a desire that could easily be satisfied.

Humans have all sorts of needs. I suppose you could say that the drive for self-actualization—let's call it spirituality, for the sake of argument—comes way, way after the basic requirements like food, water, sex, and social connection. Asceticism seems to target those primary, foundational needs directly.
If those core needs aren't met, it leads to frustration or even death, I guess...

At the end of the day, humans are evolving animals. It’s possible that, eventually, the need for self-actualization or spirituality will rise up to become one of those primary drivers...

Well, at least I'm not working at Microsoft. 😲

Asceticism is quite fascinating to me, particularly its... The primary drivers behind enhancing human health and optimizing overall physiological functionality are quite straightforward. One cannot simply hope for vitality; one must actively engineer it through disciplined lifestyle choices and biological optimization..

You’re practically tempting me to sin. 😬

Asceticism is nothing more than a form of suffering—it is the direct refusal to satisfy a desire that could easily be fulfilled.

You’re right about that. But a person enters into self-denial with full awareness of what they're doing. If one only... bit Interpret her desires and her will as her own. Constant dissatisfaction.It’s a foregone conclusion that you’ll always be chasing her approval; desire itself is a bottomless pit that can never truly be satiated. It simply shifts its focus from one object of longing to the next. This is the fundamental absurdity of human existence—or life in general—where man is essentially defined by nothing more than "useless passion."
On the other hand, if a person... Learn. By practicing mental discipline and learning to want less, you move closer to that ultimate state of freedom. Because true freedom isn't about having everything; it's about needing nothing. I want it, free of charge. Already. I'm good, thanks.True freedom lies in that moment of resigned apathy—that deliberate choice to opt out of whatever you were previously striving for. Take push-ups, for example. When your muscles are screaming and the pain becomes unbearable, you reach a point where you can choose to stop or force yourself to continue. Choosing to quit in that moment isn't just giving up; it’s an exercise of agency. You are essentially saying, "I choose not to." That is the ultimate expression of being free.
Look, this isn't about push-ups. We aren't talking about some basic fitness routine here. This is about the systematic erosion of desire itself—a fundamental reduction of the very will and impulse that defines the human condition.

Humans have a hierarchy of needs. Self-actualization—which I’d categorize under spirituality—only emerges much, much later than the basic requirements for food, water, sex, and social connection. Asceticism specifically targets those primary drives.

Certain needs simply take precedence over others. Water, food, and warmth are fundamental. Following those come reproduction, then community, and finally social status. These are all pure instinct.

Unmet needs lead directly to frustration or even death...

Suppressing desires into the unconscious clearly results in psychological ailments, manifesting as a reflexive response through autonomous, complex psychic consciousness.
However, we are discussing conscious, rational reduction here, not forced suppression via something like moral condemnation.

Again, man is an evolving animal; it is entirely possible that the need for self-actualization or spirituality will eventually rise to become a primary drive...

Supposedly, we are actually less intelligent than the average citizen of Ancient Greece. We just have Google and stuff. 😲
Our only path toward evolution might be as android beings, similar to what was depicted in the film A. I.
But evolution is driven by will—I generally use "will" or "desire" as an all-encompassing term, somewhat akin to the concept of God—whereas in this world of desire and its inevitable consequence of suffering, the entire point is to quiet that desire.

Ultimately, we are talking about a sublime state of spirit that no longer requires anything. An independent spirit. I’ve read about these states of consciousness. Anyway. Cheers. Anyway.

silentwolf192 said:I’m digging the new profile pic, Casey Gomez. Is that actually you? Now I totally get why you picked that nickname 😉

Alright, jokes aside, let me just reiterate my point—though I suspect my take might be a bit too soft for some people here. I honestly believe that extreme asceticism mostly just breeds neuroses that eventually boil over, much like how pure hedonism becomes its own empty goal. If you instead treat health and moderation as your guiding lights, I think you’ll find the right path. Sure, there isn't always some massive, obvious sign that you're on the right track—not externally, and certainly not immediately from within—but if you stay persistent and patient, it eventually shows itself.

As Lord Buddha wisely concluded after initially practicing an extreme, self-destructive form of asceticism—which he later rejected as an inadequate path—we can see the difference by comparing his depiction here with his later worldview, for instance here, where he appears slightly more robust. 👍
To be clear, I am not advocating for arbitrary eating disorders driven by a misguided desire for spiritual progress; a person must know how to find balance. The imperative lies in rationality, even if that remains a variable factor. 😬
What I am proposing is a gradual yet decisive adaptation. After all, we live in a material world.
Furthermore, I am not condemning materialism or hedonism through some Catholic lens of sin, but rather viewing them as causal obstacles to psychological and spiritual development.
Anyway, here is a quick link so this doesn't sound overly religious and to clarify the origin of my stance.
And naturally,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

You're talking nonsense 😲 😍

hiddenbear3 said:People tend to bury themselves deep within their own thoughts, essentially letting their fears dictate which quotes they adopt as absolute truth. They turn these snippets into rigid laws by which they measure everything else, which unfortunately leads to years of stagnation—though it seems to be an unavoidable part of human nature. What’s most disappointing, though, is seeing people cling so blindly to the lines of a single book; it kills any hope for a genuine dialogue built on a diversity of perspectives.
It isn't as if people haven't been paying attention to the world around them, only to realize that much of what is called "dialogue" is actually just a facade. In many cases, the true goal isn't understanding, but rather the establishment and preservation of dogma for its own sake.

Given the scope of this PDF, I really think we should be communicating at a much higher level. After all, religion exists specifically to provide a framework for these kinds of deep, dogmatic debates.

In reality, accepting a pessimistic view of existential conditions isn't exactly an escape from fear.

They cling to certain quotes that become laws by which they measure everything else, causing them to stagnate for years, though I suppose that seems inevitable. And what’s most pathetic is that you're enslaved to a single quote from one book.

Man is a being of desire. Consequently, he is necessarily not free from the objects of his own desires, making him their slave. Therefore, you aren't in any better position than I am.👍
It isn't about "a quote from one book," but rather a fundamental premise of entire branches of philosophy and psychology—a vast body of literature that I haven't even finished reading yet. 😲

It's not as if people are idiots who can't see how a conversation ends, or fail to realize that dialogue is merely a deception where the goal is dogma, or even dogma itself.

I intentionally omitted my sources in the original post specifically to avoid these kinds of comments—which are possible, but hardly justified. Later, in an effort toward clarity and mutual understanding, I included them. These philosophies aren't dogmatic in their ideological leanings; quite the opposite. What *is* dogmatic is your stance, which reeks of a one-sided Marxian opium-fixation and is clearly based on your total ignorance of the subject at hand.

Communication on this forum should happen at a slightly higher level; religion is meant for dogmatic debates.

The PDF covers spirituality, and the primary source of spirituality isn't some Ouija board—it's religion, so those two currents naturally align. However, I deliberately avoided using the word "religion" and used "philosophy" instead (which, as you wish, dialectically clarifies religious theses or hypotheses), so there, that aligns with spirituality too.
As for what you consider a "higher level," I have no idea what you mean. 😲

silentwolf192 said:"you know where you stand, and you're choosing not to get into it"

I’m still trying to wrap my head around why this topic was even started in the first place.

I have no interest in debating things that aren't actually the point here; I don't want this to veer off the rails right out of the gate (though, looking at this, it seems 😬 it already has), but if you truly believe you can provide some high-quality, well-reasoned arguments that actually broaden the scope despite the restrictions being proposed, then by all means, let's hear it. 👍

Was my previous post too vague? 🤔 Essentially, I am using this platform to pose a fundamental challenge to established materialistic values. Not that there is anything particularly groundbreaking about that.
Yesterday, however, I decided to put forward a specific thesis: the absolute necessity of renouncing worldly desires in order to achieve spiritual growth. My emphasis lies on that necessity; anyone seeking the highest level of existence must become intensely objective and critical of the very rationalizations used to justify a materialistic, hedonistic lifestyle—a lifestyle that almost always comes at the expense of spiritual evolution.
My own spiritual worldview is drawn from Buddhist and existentialist philosophies. I omitted that previously, but I am mentioning it now for the sake of clarity. Both philosophical schools, in their core value formulations, lean toward nihilism by denying the ultimate, absolute Being—that is, God existing behind the veil of reality. In my case (as with many others observing from the outside), that a priori understanding—where the state of mind reached through both renunciation and dedicated meditative reduction is nearly impossible to describe in words, let alone feel—remains a mystery to me. But that does not mean it is mere nonsense.
This isn't just limited to Buddhism or existentialism; even Jesus Christ lived in poverty, famously noting how difficult it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It seems that renunciation is a spiritual inevitability. If we refuse to accept the rules of the game, we cannot expect to actually play; we will be left with nothing but an illusion.
All these modern assumptions regarding spiritual development through sexuality, Tantra, or those neo-yogic cults of the body—which is essentially how yoga has been degraded here in the West—are complete nonsense. Look, not everyone is going to agree with me, but I know my mind and I know why I hold these views, so I have no desire to drag this into a protracted debate.

Or consider how Buddhism defines human happiness: as the ratio between what we desire and what we actually possess. Given that human beings are inherently insatiable, the only logical and rational way to solve this equation is to reduce our desires rather than constantly accumulating more stuff. Of course, that isn't the instinctive way to live.

The core issue here is essentially how far an individual intends to push their own self-development and spirituality, versus how much they settle for frivolous, fleeting quick fixes—those superficial religious veneers and New Age recipes typically cobbled together from religious or psychoanalytic theories dressed up in naive semantics.
The term "spirituality" itself, which relies on spirit as its central motif, ideologically implies a counterpoint to materialism; it suggests non-substantialism. In nearly all religious texts, the imperative to renounce material wealth emerges as a necessity for the spiritual and secular lives of religious figures—essentially acting as an idealistic paradigm.
Such a demand placed upon a human being stands in direct opposition to our innate nature, which is defined by the permanent attempt to satisfy our own internal voids. As one philosopher clarified, the very existence of passion is a clear indicator that human reality is one of scarcity. It is an unquenchable scarcity that easily devolves into compensation through extreme forms of human gratification, manifesting as blind greed and hatred.
Thus, it is clear that in the struggle against our own animality, man must sacrifice his inherent inclination toward materialism to slowly ascend toward, say, the divine, in order to reach what is ultimately a true ordering of reality. Truth is ugly, according to N.

However, it is difficult to realize this imperative *a priori*, and even harder to abandon the psychological primacy through which we live our lives: our instincts.
The reward is hazy; the state of consciousness belonging to a sublime spirit is an intangible unknown that cannot be pursued if one isn't even aware of its existence.

It is obvious that such a philosophy cannot be contemplated unless it is lived. It requires a different worldview, a different tuning of the nervous system—something that seems impossible to the average person. This requires either an innate quality or circumstances driven by a certain destined force.
Our needs and desires are, even historically speaking, replaceable as momentary pursuits. It would be absurd to suggest that a modern person wants exactly what an 18th-century resident wanted, such as a new carriage and a horse. Yet, that was just as much of a struggle for them as a luxury car is for someone today.

So, who is truly prepared to sublimate nature—that nature whose enchanting, scenic beauty we admire—while beneath our feet, a dramatically fatal and relentless war plays out as a compensation for the eternal deficiency felt by those who live?

An ambitious man who works for hours just to enjoy wealth still represents the ideal of human will and struggle, but can he simultaneously enjoy his entire estate in the same way a higher spirit can enjoy the entirety of its own hard-won, superhuman consciousness?