Posts by Ryan Wilson2

placidjackal36 said:Oh, if that were anyone else saying it... but it was placidjackal36, that "dogmatic scientific fossil" you aren't supposed to trust. 😉
Maybe the sheer hatred they have for me—and believe me, I know it exists, judging by the hate mail I get—will actually force them to read to the end, maybe giving their brains a much-needed workout. It might hit that 2%, 5%, or 10% margin of people who aren't complete idiots, though honestly, I wouldn't bet much on it. 😁

Oh please, I understand exactly how their minds work. They’ll cling to the label of "dogmatic scientific dinosaur" as their primary weapon when they try to explain away universal connectivity, simply because, hey, you supposedly admitted to it yourself.

placidjackal36 said:Just my two cents here—physics does technically say the entire universe is interconnected. But that doesn't mean our brains can actually derive any practical benefit from it. For instance, if they set off a miniature atomic device in China, the energy released will eventually reach me, sure, but it’ll be so incredibly dissipated by the time it gets here that I won't be able to tell it apart from basic background noise.
The same thing happens if someone in New Zealand picks up a tiny pebble and drops it. First, they expend their own energy to bend down and lift the stone (energy pulled straight from the food they ate), and at that height, the pebble holds a few millijoules of potential energy. The second they let go, that energy scatters through air friction and finally through the impact with the floor. Those few millijoules just vanish, dissipating across the planet.
The wider it spreads, the weaker it gets. You aren't going to register the impact of a pebble hitting the ground a mile away, let alone all the way across America.
These are such infinitesimally small and indistinguishable values that they have zero impact. To put it visually, on a graph like this
http://fecal.org.mx/data/files/estadisticas/nulos.png" alt="image" loading="lazy" class="bb-img"> representing the change in energy received by a detector, those influences would just be invisible, microscopic bumps that you couldn't distinguish from the background static.
It’s like looking at a 3D model of a city and trying to read the location of a speck of dust from it. The parts of the graph are tens of meters high—buildings, skyscrapers—and you're trying to measure something 0.05 mm tall. Forget dust... we're talking about viruses.

And because of this fact—that everything affects everything else in a sort of deterministic chaos that is impossible to measure—some people build these grand ideas that we are "all one." It's not happening. It just makes no sense.
Just because my particles are being bombarded by thermal and radio waves that no imaginable device could ever isolate or distinguish, doesn't mean I am "one" with some Filipino guy halfway across the world having dinner right now.

A true New Age enthusiast will have their heart leap at a statement like yours, yet their brain will conveniently filter out everything else. In a few months, they’ll come crawling back claiming they were the ones who originally said the entire universe is connected, and they'll shamelessly hijack your evidence to support their own agenda.

That is simply how it works.

placidjackal36 said:I’m pretty sure I’m made up of at least a thousand particles that were once part of Spartan. 🙂

Look, Anna—spirituality isn't built on what you already know. It’s about everything else. Think of it like standing way up in the branches of a massive oak tree. You're high up, gripping the limbs tight, peering through the leaves with that kind of wide-eyed curiosity a kid has. You reach out into the void, just letting your hands wander into the endless space, dreaming, discovering, and getting lost in the philosophy of it all. To It’s what makes us a superior species, really. We’ve moved past just surviving and chasing basic biological urges; now, we actually sit around and think about ourselves. We’re essentially just little fragments of the universe that have somehow gained the ability to go looking for our own purpose. To me, that’s exactly what spirituality is.

Spirituality isn't about playing games or lying to yourself by pretending that ATP doesn't drive everything we do. It’s not some primitive obsession with lucky charms or acting like a scared kid hiding from monsters under the bed, trying to ward off bad vibes with incense and "sacred symbols." That's not it.
Spirituality isn't about ignoring the facts you already know. It’s not just about sawing off the branch you're sitting on; it’s more like planting dynamite in the trunk of the tree itself. 🤷

How are you supposed to build anything if you can't find a single foundation that actually holds up? It’s a total deadlock. Even Descartes went through that whole phase where he tossed everything out, stripped away every certainty he had, only to realize eventually that there was still a bedrock underneath it all.
"Everything is fine, everything is possible"—give me a break. That isn't spirituality; it’s just intellectual anarchy. I can see that gentlemaker6 is actually getting a kick out of it, too—thriving in this chaotic, messy headspace where everything is supposedly "one" and nothing has any individual distinction. Honestly, that’s just peddling cult ideology. It’s nowhere near actual intellectual depth. If you believe that, you aren't even free. I’ve run into some of the most dogmatic types on this entire forum during my time on the Spirituality board, and let me tell you, the hypocrisy is thicker than you could imagine.

I’m just going to keep my mouth shut from here on out. If I say anything else, people are inevitably going to start accusing me of being some troll just looking for trouble. Honestly, all I’m doing is asking questions about the same stuff you are.
When I start questioning someone's rigid dogmas—those little echo chambers where people peddle their views like they’re some kind of holy gospel that can't be touched—it’s always treated like an act of war. It’s funny, really. They wrap themselves in these lofty labels like "The Truth" or "freedom of thought," but it’s pure hypocrisy. If you dare to poke a hole in their carefully constructed reality, suddenly you aren't just a skeptic; you're the enemy. It's the exact same playbook used by those fringe cults you see in documentaries, just dressed up in much more polite language.

As the "infamous" Crowley once put it:

"The Method of science — The aim of religion."

gentlemaker6 said:I am not seeking comfort. I simply know the facts.

The truth is, nobody can claim to know for certain until they've actually passed away. Everything else is nothing more than idle philosophizing—a desperate attempt to distract ourselves from our inherent fear of death.

gentlemaker6 said:Death doesn't actually exist. It is merely a shift in form—a rebirth on the other side. Life is defined by constant change, so it follows that change is what truly binds us together. We can certainly choose to celebrate change. Life never truly terminates; it simply evolves. 😁

That is nothing more than a coping mechanism for you.😁

Jacob Jackson50 said:Even in the deepest, pitch-black darkness, you can still find a way out. You just have to remember to flip the light switch.

That is a lovely sentiment, but let’s be realistic: you don't "exit" the darkness. You merely illuminate it for a moment.

As long as you're the one footing the bill for the electricity...

gentlemaker6 said:I am not rambling about fantasies, nor have I lost my way.

I fear the confusion lies with you; you seem obsessed with reducing every statement to mere chemistry and physics. Please understand that science does not yet hold all the answers. Until it does, your behavior on this forum is nothing more than harassment—driven by your negativity and a compulsive need to debunk my points or anyone else's. If you truly consider yourself a scientist, you are essentially working just to validate my claims.

I stated quite clearly that this isn't about chemistry, but about life itself. Look in a mirror or out your window; life is teeming everywhere in countless forms. Many haven't even been discovered yet. What binds them all together? Life itself, manifesting in various ways. Within your narrow view, you obsessively study the chemical makeup of every organism, failing to realize that neither chemistry nor physics creates life. Without spirit, without a soul to drive and shape it, there is no life as we know it.

What I am describing—this shift in consciousness and the realization that we are all one—will come through understanding that the One who grants us life is singular. We are one because of that connection, not because of carbon atoms, tin, niobium, ribosomes, or any other material element.

As an atheist, your fundamental settings are flawed because you don't believe in God. Consequently, your efforts aren't aimed at understanding my perspective, but rather at dismantling it. Your stance is predictable: you only believe what can be scientifically proven, yet you live surrounded by phenomena that science has yet to grasp. I am telling you, you will have to change your paradigm if you ever wish to truly see. To truly see, one must first believe. That applies to everything in life, not just religion.

I kindly ask that you cease these negative posts. Spare me the demands for evidence and the constant references to chemistry and physics. If I were to walk onto a forum where you were the moderator and behaved toward you the way you do to me here, I would be giving you a free pass to react however you liked. On this platform, we should maintain a positive tone.

Look out that same window and you will see that death is ever-present. Every single life form eventually ends, or survives by ending another. Death is the true universal constant that binds us all together. Does that necessarily mean we are obligated to celebrate Death?

Sarah King25 said:In their hands, hmm... 🤔? 😁

Is a single solitary post really the only response to my subtle, mystical messages? 🤔

Ehhh, even this community of spirituality isn't what it used to be...😁

boldsailor32 said:And what about helping women in need???

V. 😁

As I have already stated, you are more than welcome to implement your little ideas within a thread where you actually hold moderator status. In fact, feel free to step in and help those ladies in distress, since it is notoriously difficult for them to find footing without even a shred of authority in their hands. 😁

boldsailor32 said:So, am I only allowed to fight for my ideas if I hold a moderator position?

The short answer is no. 😁

At most, you might have some influence over how things are run within the specific sections where you actually serve as a moderator.

Jack Wood43 said:How many of our requests actually turn into reality? (I want to say I support you, 😉), but what exactly are we gaining from it in practice? 🤷.

An opportunity to spread pagan customs right from the front lines🙂

I have always had an insatiable appetite for fresh information. If you wouldn't mind, please share your own experiences and outline the specific methods one might use to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. 🙂

Brian Foster3 said:It’s through the soul, obviously! And let me tell you, the soul isn't just one single thing; it’s made up of several different "organs." Steiner actually goes into detail about this. For instance, nature has already developed four higher chakras to a certain point, but you can actually build them up even further so they start pulling in information from spiritual realms. Think of it like a classic old-school radio setup—you've got the transmitter and then you've got the receiver. The transmitter is blasting signals out constantly, but if you haven't built a receiver that matches the resonant frequency, you'll sit there thinking the air is empty. It feels like nothing is happening, but trust me, it's all right there.

Fine, I suppose I'll get eight different answers to that. But let me ask just one more thing: is it actually necessary to neglect the mind and the other senses in order to develop the soul?

shadowgardener12 said:In yogic psychology, the intellect is just one sense of perception. Intuition is the other. You’re being way too Western-centric in how you view this deeper phenomenon. It's superficial... Things yogis have spent thousands of years studying can't be grasped through logic or ratio—that typical Western approach of reducing everything down to what’s already known. But that's just a tiny fraction of a much larger culture of thought. That reductionist mindset works fine for everyday life because it simplifies things... but Yoga is about expansion—expanding experience and realization.

Once you strip away external input from the brain and its upgrade, the mind, you finally start to hear the "information" coming from within. Otherwise, it's just drowned out by all the outside noise.
At first, you'll just hear your own internal noise, much louder than before, 😉 and only once you manage to quiet that down can you enter deeper territories of experience...😉 infinite... endless inner worlds, true 😉, realizations.
And it's all just a play, a reflection, Lila, the veil, Maya... the true reality.

Let’s look at this from a practical standpoint; I have little patience for abstract theorizing when there is action to be taken. If I were to strip away my senses and my mind entirely, what possible reason is there to believe that whatever remains would be the sole arbiter of reality?

goldeneagle2 said:There’s this idea floating around—sort of an old-school philosophical take—that reality is actually just one single thing. It’s only perceived by someone who has managed to rise above the noise of basic sensory input and all those mental loops our brains run based on whatever stimuli hit our senses. For anyone still stuck in that loop of seeing and thinking—you know, just reacting to what’s right in front of them—reality looks like this messy, fragmented collection of different things. People see differences everywhere, which leads to all sorts of conflicting thoughts... but honestly? They’re all missing the mark. None of it is quite capturing what reality actually is.

A single, simple question keeps forcing its way into my mind: through which organ do we actually perceive reality?

Because if we strip away our senses entirely, what are we left with? We are left with a brain—an organ incapable of feeling pain or touch—that is perfectly content floating inside a skull. If we remove all external stimuli, do we encounter nothingness? Or is it perhaps only in that absolute void that the faculties required to experience true reality begin to develop? After all, we know that when deprived of external information, the brain is capable of "inventing" things itself, driven by an innate hunger for stimulation.

casualtiger2 said:vastusamye cittabhedattayorvibhaktah panthah

Since what is "objectively real" (vastu) is actually just one thing—any divergence between two observers happens simply because their "perceptual foundation" (citta) differs.

The differences we see in how people act can be explained by their varying capacities for perception—basically, the difference in how refined their perceptual foundation (citta) is—rather than some lack of a single, unified reality for any given object.

Translation and commentary — Zoran Zec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this morning and wondering: why are so many people so obsessed with being right? Why is winning an argument so vital to them, especially when we know our "perceptual foundations" are bound to be different?
It’s also funny how everyone claims to have their own unique life or spiritual path, yet they still constantly insist—either subtly or not so subtly—that *their* way is the only correct one.

Over time, I’ve learned not to take my own opinions too seriously—even though I still try to build them on the best, most precise info available and defend them clearly. At the end of the day, an opinion is just one possible lens for viewing reality, even if it feels like a powerful tool.
It seems like a huge issue to me. I see so many relationships—especially between partners or parents and kids—where, even when people are convinced by other sources (emotional ones, usually), they still end up clashing in these pointless power struggles over who is "right."
Maybe that obsession with our own mental constructs explains a good chunk of the conflicts we see in religion and spirituality, too.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying we should accept everything blindly. There's always room to critique systems, groups, or individuals. But if others aren't hurting anyone and are genuinely trying to move forward on a path of love and light, they deserve at least some understanding, if not full support.
Even when aiming for the same goal, different systems use wildly different methods. It makes you wonder where the line is, and what the point of all this "right vs. wrong" friction really is. To what extent does criticism from one school of thought actually matter to someone in another?

How do you guys handle your own opinions, and how do you deal with people who are trying to grow spiritually in a way that’s totally different from yours?

Over the last few years, I’ve adopted a fairly straightforward approach: I attempt to initiate contact to exchange perspectives and share experiences, but if that fails to yield anything productive, I simply cut ties. It is remarkably easy to do that online. In real life, however, when a discussion starts veering into undesirable territory, I find it necessary to de-escalate the situation with a bit of humor. I typically pivot the conversation toward something utterly trivial—something like football, local news, or politics—just to steer things back to neutral ground.

It seems that, increasingly, I encounter fewer and fewer people who actually pursue any kind of spiritual life.

William Reed said:Everything you think you actually own?

Like, every single thing tied to this material life, all that temporary stuff that just slips through your fingers anyway...?

😳

There is simply nothing that does not belong to this realm.

One must learn to let go of the attachment itself, rather than attempting to let go of the things we are attached to.

Noah Sanchez7 said:Jesus says:

"Deny yourself, and you will find happiness."

Ha! What do you all think about that?

But what exactly am I supposed to renounce?

Noah Sanchez7 said:No. With our ego, we just interact with other egos, which isn't about the outside world at all—it’s just about social circles. If there weren't another ego facing mine, we wouldn't just have contact; we would have a connection that is much more beautiful, pleasant, and noble. That is the whole point..

The difference is that we can consciously influence ourselves, whereas an animal is a slave to its desires; that link is the only thing connecting us to the animal kingdom. That's why they say humans are part animal and part God. We exist somewhere in between, and that is our "greatest curse"..

Everything material depends on the material. Wherever there is dependency, there is no absolute freedom, and therefore no total liberation... Not until death..

I would describe Buddhism, or perhaps Buddha himself, as a "truth fanatic." And even if truth itself is eternal, we as we are are not! We are "trapped" in the material, so truly, our actions should be directed against "repeated action." Why?
Because truth leans toward purity, and birth itself is inherently messy when viewed from that highest point of truth..

However, there is still plenty of acting and dying left to do here, because judging by the collective consciousness of the people, we are "still young."
What is the "world of action"? It is this world.
The moment you find yourself needing "action," it means you "want" something, and desire itself is an illusion; it never satisfies us permanently, only temporarily, before a new desire arises, and so it goes on forever..

It isn't the spine, it’s the neck. And where would we even be without society? Most likely stuck in the belly of some animal.

The moment you find yourself needing "action," it means you "desire" something. Desire itself is an illusion because it never provides lasting satisfaction—it's always short-lived, only to be replaced by a new craving, and so on, indefinitely...

I don't see anything inherently wrong with satisfying one's desires. Of course, I am not referring to pathological extremes here, but why should there be an issue if I satisfy my desire for a comfortable bed, a room free of mosquitoes, and a cold beer? It's even easier to just employ some spiritual rhetoric and write something profound like, "I am basking in the infinite moment of present contentment, for past and future do not exist—there is only the now."

😁

Brandon Hall88 said:In this life, you have to play both sides. You need to weave through things like a snake moving through the brush.
The goal is to use them, not to be used by them.
And honestly, that’s exactly what everyone is looking for when they go searching for "training"...

At its core, the ego isn't the issue—it's the identification with it.
When we talk about the "death of the ego," what we really mean is disidentification. It’s the process of draining the energy used to maintain that mental image of yourself. The ego is just a constructed self-image... basically, a loss of identity. The mind begins to unravel, but in doing so, it falls under the control of the consciousness that was sitting quietly in the background all along.

Consciousness is what draws the line between a human being and an animal. Not the ego. Specifically, consciousness.

That was my initial thought as well—viewing the ego merely as a tool utilized by consciousness. I had assumed such a distinction was self-evident.