Posts by Maria Robinson2

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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...

brighteagle39 said:The very first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this thread's title was the Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse. It struck me that perhaps Hesse’s wolf is the only truly "authentic" lone wolf out there—that quintessential individual standing firm against the hypocrisy of society. Even though the novel was written nearly ninety years ago, I can't help but feel its themes remain just as relevant today.

Yes, it's relevant. Anyone who has read Hesse knows how easy it is to become a lone wolf.
The thing is, though—well, if anyone actually cares about being depressed—people don't bond through bad intentions; they connect through good ones, I guess.

Dennis Bennett28 said:When I think about diving into the subconscious, I’m really picturing people who simply find more fulfillment tucked away in their own thoughts than they do hanging out in a crowd. And honestly? It’s not like there’s anything wrong with them. Let’s be real—socializing can actually be pretty draining after a while; it can totally suck the wind right out of your sails! Especially when the conversation inevitably turns into a relentless loop of "me, myself, and I."😁

Well, that’s a different matter entirely. Society is the problem here. You should probably try to change your surroundings so you don't end up an unknown—because as you mature, you'll likely drift away from your old circles due to circumstances beyond your control. If you don't find a new tribe elsewhere, then—well—you've just created another loner. 🙂

Is that roughly how the story goes?

Dennis Bennett28 said:From an astrological perspective, the ruler of my first house—the one that defines my core personality and natural inclinations—is Pluto in Scorpio, sitting right in the twelfth house, which is basically the "prison" zone or the house of isolation. Because of that placement, I find a lot of peace in being alone, even though I can definitely hold my own and have a great time when I'm out with others. It’s just not something I do very often or for very long. 😁

I like to think of it this way: lone wolves tend to spend much more time exploring their own subconscious than the rest of the pack does. 😁

True, taking some time for yourself—whenever you feel the need—doesn't exactly make you a lone wolf.
People sometimes label introverts as "lone wolves," though I think there's a distinction missing there—but analyzing the specifics feels more like a job for a psychologist than a spiritual discussion. Also, the idea that loners focus more on their subconscious isn't necessarily true... I know plenty of social butterflies who are constantly talking about their inner psyche and self-discovery—it’s actually quite interesting to listen to them. 🙂

darkraven said:Look, if we’re talking about people who are essentially lone wolves by nature, then even a wolf with a pack is still just a loner at heart. Solitude—true individuality—is just a fundamental part of being alive. Just because someone claims they're "fine" with being alone doesn't actually prove anything. By definition, a lone wolf is someone who either walked away from the pack or got kicked out. As a human trait, the implications of that should be pretty obvious.

I think you're using the wrong label for the kind of people you're describing. Those folks aren't loners; they're just people who happen to be comfortable in their own skin. They're introverts, sure, but they have enough social battery to lean into extroversion when they feel like it—they sit somewhere in that middle ground, leaning toward the quiet side. But once they start building a solid circle of friends and doing all the stuff you mentioned, they definitely don't fit into that "lone wolf" category anymore.

And honestly? I don't think it's even possible to be disconnected from your authentic self. Maybe there's a moment in some deep, unconscious state where that "self" isn't even there to begin with, though I'm not sure you could even call that being "disconnected." For people who actually pay attention to their own consciousness and what's going on inside their heads, they might just be a bit more tuned in to the process. It’s not that deep.

Ostracized—because... well, there isn't even a wolf (the animal) that actually finds joy in living entirely alone.
Humans have logic alongside their feelings, whereas a wolf just has feelings, I guess.
People claim to identify with the wolf, seemingly, but if you listen closely, you realize they’re actually identifying with cats. It's interesting, assuming those two species have anything in common at all.

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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. 🙂

bluemason3 said:It doesn't just start then. Those "symbolic moments" that act as precursors to future achievements are present throughout an entire biography, starting from childhood. For instance, that state of meditative focus—which later formal Buddhism defines as the first level of jhana—is something he remembers later when he decides to sit in meditation and finally reach his goal. In these stories, it shows up in early childhood while he's just observing scenes in nature. There are plenty of other moments like that. Not to mention the much more complex stories about his previous incarnations and things like that.

Besides, we can't truly reconstruct the actual historical life of Buddha today. Even though most people agree there was a real historical figure, there are still those who express doubts (similar to the debates surrounding Jesus). But regardless of whether he was likely a historical person, it is completely impossible to separate myth from history. You might try to dig up the oldest and perhaps most credible version within a religious context through some comparative approach, but the story remains firmly within a religious framework.

It’s probably safer to view these things as symbolic messages and allegories, as seen in most hagiographies, rather than strictly literal historical facts and events.

You picked up on a sharp detail there—comparing him to Jesus Christ.

I only pulled a few quotes from my book on Buddhism, but if I were to write out every comparison, it would be painfully obvious how much they try to frame Buddha through the canon. It seems like Buddhism tried to latch onto the Old and New Testaments—a rather clumsy attempt, really—specifically targeting that influence tied to the Pharisees during the early era.

It looks like modern Buddhists aren't particularly concerned with original teachings. It’s the standard story you see in just about every global religion, I suppose; what else is there to conclude?

Thomas Nelson25 said: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."

?

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...

Thomas Nelson25 said: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. 😉

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.

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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.

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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."

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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.

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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... 🙂

Thomas Nelson25 said: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. 😉

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.)

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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... 🙂

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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.'

Thomas Nelson25 said:Nietzsche called it the will of the weak—just a mindless herd.

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? 🙂

Thomas Nelson25 said: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. 😉

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?

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

"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. 🙂

Thomas Nelson25 said: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.

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?