Posts by Brenda Cook4

Michael Anderson2 said:Sure, everything is one. But even that's just an illusion. 😉
I'm thinking about making myself a t-shirt that says, "We're all masters!"

Honestly, I don't see any point in communicating like this—there’s no actual debate, no exchange of ideas, nothing.

Why so rigid—or should I say, why so abrasive, placidharbor7? Why dodge the questions being thrown your way? Why not actually lay out the reasoning behind your views on the topic? Honestly, if you truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, why not engage more meaningfully in the discussion? Explain things, teach us, make a recommendation, drop a link—just give us something to work with. Most of your posts just seem to be an invitation to conflict. Show us this "transcendence" you keep talking about...🙄

Auuu Chief, you are missing the mark by quite a bit... just look at one of the master's tall tales....

wearymason36 said:I’ve always resonated with Osho’s take on meditation—the idea that it’s a state achieved by detaching oneself from the stream of consciousness. Most people mistake meditation for deep contemplation; they say things like, "Last night, I meditated on Jesus" or "on Siddhartha." To me, that isn't it. Real meditation is about stepping back from the flow of thought, or at least attempting to 🙂. You can't just kill off your thoughts without chemical assistance. The only way is through detached observation—positioning yourself like a cold, objective camera inside your own psyche. When you engage in deliberate contemplation, you're actively working to shape your thoughts using intellect and logic. But with detachment, the effort is only required at the start, while you work to become aware of your internal observer and how it reacts to the subconscious surge. Once you pull away, it’s like climbing out of a raging river to simply sit and watch the waterfall.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the term "meditation" is being used to describe two diametrically opposed concepts here. In my view, nobody is wrong; we just need to be explicit about which definition we’re using during a conversation.

It isn't really about "opposite meanings." It's more that meditation is this broad umbrella term. Underneath it, you have meditation in the narrow sense, and then you have contemplation (think of things like samatha and vipassana; their methods, aims, and results are quite distinct).

Think of it this way:
We concentrate because we want to reach the Goal.
We meditate because we want to live in the heart of the Goal.
We contemplate because we want to become the Goal.

...so, if our aim is to truly grasp the nature of reality, we aren't looking to "detach from consciousness." Instead, we practice vipassana, which is nothing less than a penetrating vision born from a focused state of mind. What we're doing isn't escaping consciousness; it's actually waking it up—developing the capacity to truly see and understand...

...but there are plenty of experts out there who could explain that much better than I can...

placidharbor7 said:

Blue Bird! Is there anything more iconic than that little splash of color streaking through the sky? I was just sitting on my porch this morning, sipping some coffee, when I spotted one of those beautiful little guys darting through the trees. It honestly made my entire day! Doesn't it just strike you as amazing how much joy such a tiny creature can bring to a backyard? You find yourself holding your breath, just hoping they’ll land on a branch nearby for a second so you can admire them. It’s those little moments of pure, unadulterated nature that really make life sweet, don't you think? Truly, what could be better than a bright blue visitor to remind us to slow down and enjoy the view? kaže:
Ever wonder if there’s a better way to explain things? Sometimes, a simple analogy just hits differently, doesn't it? It’s like when you’re trying to explain a complex technical glitch to someone who isn't tech-savvy—instead of drowning them in jargon about motherboards and voltage, you just compare it to a clogged drain in a kitchen sink. Suddenly, everything clicks! I’ve always felt that finding the right comparison is an art form in itself. It bridges the gap between "I have no clue what you're talking about" and "Oh, I totally get it now!" Isn't that the whole point of good communication? To make the complicated feel easy and the distant feel close? I'd love to hear how you all tackle this—do you rely on metaphors, or do you prefer getting straight to the point? Think about it this way: the universe was designed with a certain kind of symmetry, wasn't it? There's a reason people say "as above, so below." We were crafted to mirror that same cosmic order! Because of that, why do we spend all our energy trying to penetrate deeper and deeper into the external world, constantly chasing something out there? Why push against the fabric of reality when the answers aren't waiting in some far-off corner of the galaxy? Isn't it much more logical to simply descend inward? To dive deep into our own souls to find what we're looking for? That’s really the heart of it, isn't it? Whether you call it meditation, religion, or just a quiet moment of reflection, the real journey is always an internal one.

But based on what kind of experience we're talking about here? Seriously, what's the baseline we're looking at?
You really can't beat hands-on experience when it comes to understanding how things actually work! Isn't it true that true insight always has to come before you can even begin to make a meaningful comparison? You have to live it, feel it, and master it first if you ever want to draw an accurate analogy. Otherwise, aren't you just guessing?

Think about it—analogy is one of our most common ways of reasoning. The strength of an argument built on an analogy really stems from experience—specifically, noticing patterns and consistency among things. It’s about looking at how we relate to events and seeing those cause-and-effect chains in action. Essentially, if two things share certain traits, we naturally assume they are similar in all their core principles.

...I’d venture to guess that the first thing you notice—the one thing shared by everything—is just how fleeting everything truly is...

...on the flip side, that kind of experience preceding deep meditation might have been a single moment of pure somatic bliss in a dark cave. Picture some early ancestor after a grueling hunt, maybe after deciding to whip up a little herbal tonic😁 (who knows what life was actually like for our poor ancestors? It probably wasn't "easy." To me, it feels more like a dream world, occasionally interrupted by physical reality—just intense cascades of imagery before that visual gallery got pushed into the subconscious once language evolved and verbal thought started taking over the mind)...🤷

placidharbor7 said:Think about it—how and why would anyone ever be drawn to meditation in the first place? What were they actually searching for in such a promising practice, and what kind of analogies or lived experiences led them there?

People turned to meditation for the exact same reason they turned to science: they were both trying to tackle that unavoidable, massive question of what all this is and how it all began. It’s really just a matter of direction. One group decided to look for answers out in the world, while the other looked deep within themselves.

Think of it like this analogy: just as the universe was constructed, we were constructed too. It's that "as above, so below" concept. There isn't any real need to keep digging deeper and deeper into the external world when you can simply descend into your own being to find what you're looking for... and that's how you end up at meditation... or religion...

...unless, of course, the Programmer decided everything this way—essentially hardcoding both this "miracle" and the very "need" for an answer into the system itself.😁

...or if none of it matters at all.

I suspect the answer lies in the assumption that memory isn't just some fixed, specific coordinate in the brain—not like a file stored on a hard drive in a computer. Instead, it’s more like a massive, intricate web of different neural regions all working in sync to facilitate complex functions like remembering.

Furthermore, we have to distinguish between short-term and long-term memory. Long-term memory does not occur unless protein synthesis takes place in the brain. Protein synthesis can now be measured using brain-imaging technology. In this context, long-term semantic memory—essentially our store of knowledge—is a system that requires reactivation through specific stimuli.

What the OP is describing is essentially a "blockage," a breakdown in the retrieval process. But we also have to face the fact that if we don't actively use (repeat) what we've learned, that knowledge simply becomes inaccessible... much like how it has to be properly "filed away," or truly mastered, in the first place.

hiddenhound3 said:I agree that there seems to have been a slight misunderstanding here, though if you search for Jiddu Krishnamurti on Google, you'll be flooded with all those images.

It appears that Bruna was actually referring to this gentleman.

We have previously discussed how vital it is to spark a radical revolution within the human mind.
The crisis we face is, fundamentally, a crisis of consciousness.
It is a crisis born from the fact that we can no longer accept outdated norms, obsolete standards, or ancient traditions.
And, considering the state of the world today, with all its
misery,
conflicts,
destructive brutality,
aggression,
and so on...
Humanity remains exactly what it has always been.
Still brutal,
violent,
aggressive,
possessive,
and greedy.
And, predictably, he has constructed a society that mirrors these very traits.

....of course, I assume she meant Jiddu....you get those photos because you're searching by last name, but Jiddu actually looks quite different (certainly not this handsome or striking😁)...but I'm aware that very few people actually know much about Jiddu Krishnamurti...maybe this confusion will actually nudge someone to look up Jiddu...and learn something more..."Mynd im Myth"

Here is another one of his, which happens to be my personal favorite:

wiredbear2 said:What a fantastic topic, Florine... 👍 Come on, everyone, let's hear your thoughts...

Among the many people whose works and reflections have provided me with a sense of grounding, there are two thinkers to whom I owe a special kind of debt—two souls who truly resonate with my own spiritual wavelength: Jiddu Krishnamurti and Bela Hamvas.

Krishnamurti speaks of a life lived through pure, uncomplicated simplicity, where our only true anchor and teacher is ourselves. There’s almost an anarchic quality to how he rejects all external authority and outside influence, insisting instead on the importance of a tranquil mind and the love that naturally blossoms from such a state. Even after walking away from the Theosophical Society, which he once led, he continued to forge his own path in his own unique way. His philosophy nurtures a mentally resilient individual, someone liberated from needless frustration, where enlightenment isn't a distant goal but something that occurs within the quiet, steady rhythm of daily existence, at any given moment. To him, enlightenment—or Nirvana—isn't a gradual climb, but rather a sudden occurrence: it happens now, or it never happens at all.
Krishnamurti describes a man who is truly free, from the very core of his being to the way he interacts with the world around him.



Edit 01/27 - added a photo of Jiddu🙂

Bruna, are we looking at a bit of a mix-up here?😕 From what you're saying, I assume you mean Jiddu Krishnamurti, but the photo below actually looks like a different version of him—specifically Jiddu Krishnamurti... honestly, I was quite delighted because once I saw the picture, I realized it's of that nihilist I happen to have a huge collection of books by!

I honestly feel like it’s high time we circle back to the original question that started this whole thread: the idea of forgiveness when it comes to things like war crimes.

Quincy:

Why? You asked why I’m bringing up social conditions—as if I’m trying to "relativize" their individual guilt or dodge accountability. Let me put it simply: it's about prevention. It's about learning how to spot those societal triggers before they spiral out of control again. We need to know when to act and, just as importantly, when to step back, so we don't end up burying our loved ones all over again. If we don't, someone sitting in a college seminar or a community meeting is eventually going to ask whether true forgiveness is even possible, or if there's any way to find actual justice that allows people to move forward with their lives—with or without that forgiveness.

Brenda Cook4, honestly, this feels like nothing more than empty rhetoric and trivializing a massive issue.🤷 It doesn't actually answer anything, nor does it make any sense at all.

Harold James9 said:Brenda Cook4, I understand you perfectly, and I’ll reiterate that sanctions alone can never deliver true justice in the face of a crime.

I agree with the quote and believe that ... after that, one simply moves on... — there is no other way. Whether forgiveness plays a role in that process is secondary.

Fortunately, I haven't lived through such horror, so I wouldn't dare lecture anyone who actually has.

🙂🙂🙂

What sanctions can't achieve is a return to the "status quo ante" as the only way to make things "right." To me, "justice" is essentially a social contract—something expressed through our laws, our courts, and our institutions. Take Baudrillard, for instance; he argues that human rights are essentially "soft, light, post-coital historical ideologies." Someone else might argue the opposite, which is why the only real necessity is having that agreed-upon framework. It needs to be tolerant enough to prevent us from tearing each other apart... leaving us with nothing but the "justice" found in our legal processes and procedures.

And, thankfully, I haven't had to experience such a horror firsthand either.

Harold James9 said:What exactly should be put on the other side of the scale to balance out the loss of a family, or even just one member?😕 How many times would you have to kill a murderer to make it equal to those who were killed?😕

True justice is impossible to satisfy or achieve. Courts simply penalize behavior that is socially unacceptable or harmful—nothing more.

When it comes to tragedies caused by pandemics, natural disasters, or similar events, people say God was unfair, but I have never heard anyone demand justice from God before asking Him for forgiveness.

Seeking justice usually boils down to committing an injustice, based on the simple idea of switching roles—essentially shifting the burden of seeking justice onto the person who committed the initial wrong.🙂

🙂🙂🙂

You definitely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about "seeking justice" in a vigilante sense; I was talking about holding the proper authorities accountable, which is a completely different thing altogether...

...whether that actually establishes true justice is a question, but without some form of accountability, nothing else is even possible...

Besides, my forgiveness isn't some magic wand that clears away all my internal tension. There’s a period of anger and grief. Honestly, suppressing those normal, negative reactions—which are necessary for emotional catharsis—can actually make you physically sick... and only after that does a person move forward...

As for that whole business with "God"... well...

Look, I was just responding to bluebison70's point; I wasn't trying to generalize or downplay the reality of actual crimes. My focus is specifically on that sense of inner peace—the kind you just can't reach if you're still carrying around unaddressed baggage inside you. When we talk about violent crimes, the weight of that is staggering. It’s an agonizing level of pain that I imagine tears apart those directly affected—not just by the initial injustice of the act itself, but by the secondary injustice often found in how the legal system handles it through inadequate sentencing, or simply the sheer gravity of what happened. There are countless examples of this, and horrific acts continue to occur all around us every single day. But when it comes to one's own soul? I truly believe peace is impossible without forgiveness. And that includes forgiving yourself—for not being there for the victim, or for failing to protect someone you would have died for. It's hard to look at this purely as an abstract concept... perhaps a person has to walk through their own private Calvary just to remain human, to keep from losing their mind to the agony. You simply cannot find tranquility if you're fueled by burning hatred or a desperate thirst for revenge, especially when nothing can change the past and lost lives can never be brought back.

I'm glad to see you diving back into philosophy.

...it starts with some initial catharsis, and then maybe you reach a sort of 'reconciliation' in terms of finally closing that chapter. (I'd leave "forgiveness" out of the equation here, because in this context, forgiving might feel like treating the perpetrator as if nothing actually happened...)

thx.

steelridge58 said:That’s really the only way to find peace, isn't it? It only happens once you've truly forgiven.

Peace!?!? Seriously, steelridge58, what kind of "peace" are we even talking about after someone has completely slaughtered your family? Peace!? What exactly are we discussing here?

It feels impossible to avoid falling back into those same old circular arguments, like the debate over the original topic or those typical Žižek remarks. Does it even make sense to trivialize things this much!?

Drake, congrats on the moderator gig!

Sandra Wilson68 said:I just caught up on this thread, watched the video, and read through all the posts carefully.

Honestly, I've been obsessed for years with this whole "us vs. them" phenomenon—how the world splits itself up by countries, ideologies, political parties, religions, and nations. It's the root of almost every major evil on Earth. You don't have to be a genius to see that these divisions are just a facade used by specific individuals hungry for global power, fame, and material wealth. The only philosophy that matters here is realizing TO. Once regular people finally grasp TO, the world might actually be saved. When ordinary people TO, it'll mean they've realized how pointless it is to argue over the value of any global ideology, politics, religion, or nation. They'll see that clinging to any of those labels is useless because it doesn't benefit humanity, nor does it serve God; it only serves those bloated global elites at the top of these divides. They view their followers as nothing more than a flock of sheep meant to be sheared and slaughtered.

Seriously, what's the point of the Bible, or spreading any religion to rule the world in the name of some higher power? Get real, people! It's just inviting the devil to your doorstep and nothing else. If you've joined a "philosophy" forum, show at least a little bit of philosophical depth—meaning, learn to distance yourself from all this nonsense and think for yourself, instead of acting manipulated and playing ”interpreter by trying to defend one side or another. Just look at what David says:

DAVID,
P.S. A translation of the Bible isn't enough to understand the message of a specific verse. You need interpretation. A translation isn't an interpretation. God interprets the verses for chosen leaders. (These could even be ordinary people who have reached high spiritual levels). Others who try to penetrate the meaning of a verse without divine inspiration end up falling into various traps. Some of those traps include the extremists the film refers to.

What kind of ”interpreters in high positions” are you talking about, David? Watch your mouth: “God interprets the verses for chosen leaders”. Which God? Where is this God, David? Show him to us or at least explain him. Explain how we're supposed to know which one God actually chose among the countless ”“interpreters in high positions” (of the Bible or other texts), since everyone interprets things their own way. It's obvious He didn't choose all of them, because if He had, they would all interpret things the exact same way, not differently. And I'm really curious if you and Shaun are among those ”chosen interpreters in high positions”, since I see you two interpreting religious texts and spreading faith online for years now?

Don't get mad at me and think I'm representing some global ideology, nation, or religion against any faith. This is my personal, philosophical conviction that applies equally to every group and division in the world. That said, when it comes to Islamic culture, I've studied it for a long time and appreciate its ethics and worldview quite a bit. I'd love to see the Western world adopt some of that culture and ethics, provided that part of it is stripped of all religious dogma.

Just a heads-up: don't assume that because of everything I've said, I'm an ”unbeliever”, or an atheist, or one of those people that religion needs to ”settle scores with”. I know God exists, and I know who and what He is, but I don't belong to any religion. The God I know doesn't want any divisions or religions in this world. Even if we assume the Bible and other texts are from God—that Jesus and Muhammad were..."interpreters" of God's thoughts—and yeah, you're right, those interpretations weren't meant for Christians or Muslims either, because back during their "interpretation" phase, neither group even existed. These "interpretations" were intended for all humanity as a study of good and evil, or just pure philosophy. The fact that people later split apart over these "interpretations"—leading to freezing tensions and wars—that isn't from God, it's from the devil. The whole "divide and conquer" mantra doesn't come from God; it comes from the devil. Anyone keeping that division alive today through organized religion isn't serving God—they're serving the devil. Specifically, they're serving the West. That’s the main playbook and strategy for the West today. Using that tactic, the West uses its ideology called "democracy" to take over the world step by step. First, they pit naive, divided nations and religions against each other, provoking them until they fight, go to war, and bleed each other dry. Then, they can just stroll into the territory as "saviors and judges" and take total control.

It's all just a power grab, my friends. It's about global material wealth and treating people like fools. Every single political, national, and religious leader does this—some more successfully than others—and that is their only goal. Everyone else who takes their side, supports them, or defends their faith—meaning their "interpretations" or ideologies—is either incredibly naive and doesn't get what's actually happening, or they're part of the inner circle, acting like co-conspirators to reap some material profit. There is no third explanation.

As for the movie, any religion could make one just like it, filled with authentic footage like decapitations and other gore, and use it as propaganda against any other religion. Every single one of them has left behind a massive, filthy, and bloody criminal record throughout history.

Peace.

👍 You nailed it buddy!

Lately, I’ve noticed that steps and lunges have become incredibly popular 😁

Jerry Green59 said:.. and honestly, that bolded part is my favorite thing here .. out of everything written .. mostly because he lifted it word-for-word from Alim ..
(.. though he managed to mess up pretty much everything else .. that one quote is his only saving grace .. you know .. that classic, overused metaphor of Alim's .. isn't it ..
.. just brilliant .. right ..?)

Is this😁

Alim said:.. every single new step feels like a fresh stride ..
1 .. you balance on one leg at your current spot .. essentially .. since you need that one leg to hold your entire body weight so the other can move ..
2 .. that free leg needs to find solid ground to land on .. and that ground has to be steady .. firm enough to support you ..
3 .. once you've got a grip, you pull your first leg forward to meet you at the new spot.

hiddenhound3 said:One should approach life with as few preconceived notions as possible, which essentially means allowing the mind to remain open and fluid.

Well, go ahead and let the moderator put you on the ballot up there... other than that, I think your answer is actually spot on.

goldenstag892 said:Louis, you’re basically saying that selfishness is just part of our nature, right? That we should just accept it.

I don't know, I can't say I agree with that. I feel like only people who don't really get life think that the whole point of existing is just hoarding stuff and owning things.

Even scientific studies—like, actual experiments—have shown that people are actually way happier when they pick up a little something for someone else, even if it's just some small thing, compared to blowing a ton of money on something expensive for themselves.

The real mystery is how we ended up believing this "truth," because it feels completely backwards compared to what we see every day. I mean, look around—the planet is basically drowning in clutter and people obsessed with collecting things.

It makes me wonder: would we actually be happier if "simplicity" and being free from all this material weight was actually our true nature?

swiftcobra15 said:It’s not really about deception here.
The answer lies partly in the etymology, though the truth goes a bit deeper than that.
In the Torah, the word used is ratsah, which leans more toward "murder" rather than just "killing" if you look at the root of the word.
In American Bible translations, you often see "do not kill" because, under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, the US relies heavily on the Latin translation, the Vulgate. That text uses the Latin root *occidere*, which translates more closely to "to kill" than to "to murder." So, if you're translating from Latin into English, *occidere* really does mean "to kill." Since many traditional translations stem from the Vulgate, I don't see any real issue with how those texts were translated.
Modern Protestant versions tend to use "do not commit murder," but some Jewish philosophers argue that "do not kill" might actually be the more accurate translation when you consider the full context of the Torah.
It's all a little more complicated than it looks, and honestly, nobody has definitively settled which commandment is the "correct" one: "Do not kill" or "Do not commit murder."

I don't see why this should bother you so much. When you look at the entire Bible in context, this linguistic ambiguity—or "deception" as you call it—isn't nearly as big of a deal as the other errors found in the Bible.

It’s not really about deception here.
The answer lies partly in the etymology, though the truth goes a bit deeper than that.
In the Torah, the word used is ratsah, which leans more toward "murder" rather than just "killing" if you look at the root of the word.
In American Bible translations, you often see "do not kill" because, under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, the US relies heavily on the Latin translation, the Vulgate. That text uses the Latin root *occidere*, which translates more closely to "to kill" than to "to murder." So, if you're translating from Latin into English, *occidere* really does mean "to kill." Since many traditional translations stem from the Vulgate, I don't see any real issue with how those texts were translated.
Modern Protestant versions tend to use "do not commit murder," but some Jewish philosophers argue that "do not kill" might actually be the more accurate translation when you consider the full context of the Torah.
It's all a little more complicated than it looks, and honestly, nobody has definitively settled which commandment is the "correct" one: "Do not kill" or "Do not commit murder."

I don't see why this should bother you so much. When you look at the entire Bible in context, this linguistic ambiguity—or "deception" as you call it—isn't nearly as big of a deal as the other errors found in the Bible.

In my opinion, almost every modern translation of the
Bible is a massive stretch, but this particular commandment really sticks out.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly profound, yet the intended meaning is something else entirely,
and even when interpreted as "murder," I see plenty of Christians failing to live up to it.

In my opinion, almost every modern translation of the
Bible is a massive stretch, but this particular commandment really sticks out.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly profound, yet the intended meaning is something else entirely,
and even when interpreted as "murder," I see plenty of Christians failing to live up to it.
In my view, pretty much every modern version (translation) of the
Bible is a massive fraud, but this specific commandment? It’s a real eyesore.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds majestic, sure, but the actual intent is something else entirely,
and even with that interpretation ("murder"), Christians don't exactly stick to it.
What else could that possibly refer to—if it isn't the killing of another human being?😕

There's no ambiguity in the CIA regarding the permission to kill animals (just like people are allowed to take out so-called "enemies"... adulterers... disobedient souls, etc.). I mean, doesn't Jesus eat fish?
So, I'm curious—what is this whole debate actually targeting, and where exactly are these "uncertainties" coming from?