Posts by Michael Gonzalez77

Joseph Bailey41 said:It took me a second to wrap my head around what you were getting at, but I think I’m on board. I still have my reservations about that part regarding spiritual origins, though. But honestly, it’s probably not worth getting hung up on whether it was the chicken or the egg. The bottom line is that it exists. 😍

Think of energy—or spirit—as the bedrock of everything. Its attributes are consciousness and its various layers, like intelligence and potential. On a physical level, consciousness expresses itself through different evolutionary stages—moving from inanimate matter to living organisms through the act of creation, where impressions are gathered and experienced.

Essentially, matter is just a byproduct of creation, not the foundation of consciousness. It’s actually the other way around. The real issue we face as humans is that we tend to identify with things we aren't. We aren't our bodies—which are just collections of nutrients and elements—and we aren't our minds, which are basically just a temporary loop of sensory data and external influences circling around a fleeting life. The reality of the world is much more fundamental than that.

When someone truly experiences themselves as consciousness—the driver that the body and mind belong to, rather than being a slave to them—suffering starts to fade. Most suffering is tied to the mind, which then triggers physical issues by stressing out the nervous system. In some cases, the cause might be purely physical, like injury or pathogens, but the core remains.

At the end of the day, knowing what the true foundation is matters immensely. That understanding dictates how the human spirit develops—that core energy, or aura, which serves as the hub for our intelligence, creativity, health, and spirituality.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Being an atheist just means you don't believe in God. Adopting a rigid, mechanistic worldview? That's entirely optional.

An atheist—specifically one acting as a materialist—is still essentially someone clinging to a belief system. Both sides fall into the trap of mental determinism; they’re just pulling from different wells. It's all legitimate, sure, but it's a step backward for anyone trying to develop true spiritual freedom. Real freedom shouldn't be tied to our physical or mental baggage, yet we treat these internal constructs as absolute reality simply because we pour so much energy into maintaining this illusory world of impressions. At the end of the day, you don't have to be an atheist or a theist to be trapped in a repetitive psychological loop. We get stuck in these mental habits and "life protocols" that drive a constant cycle of craving and avoidance—essentially a never-ending chase to swap pain for pleasure. Regardless of what someone believes or their specific theories, if their mind is conditioned into a circular loop that's already strained their nervous system, their ability to express their true spirit is going to be severely limited.

Sam Martinez9 said:True, though even if we assume everyone possesses a spiritual core, there’s no reason to believe we’re all operating at the same level. It’s my belief that an individual should actively strive to cultivate their own spiritual depth.

How does one go about it? Through continuous learning, deep reflection, and genuine discovery...

Think of it this way: everyone is spiritual by nature, but it’s mostly latent potential. When people live their lives without tapping into that, they become "anti-spiritual." They get stuck in rigid, regressive patterns of thinking that breed constant stress and negativity. This mindset basically erodes everything that makes us human. Most people barely scratch the surface of their true potential—it’s something seen only in a handful of remarkable individuals throughout history.

And let's be clear: formal schooling isn't the answer here. In fact, standard education often acts as a roadblock to spiritual growth. It programs people with limited perspectives, giving them the illusion that they’ve mastered life when they’ve really just been doing mental gymnastics—essentially just playing a high-stakes game of memory than actual learning.

There are endless ways to develop your spirit, but there's one non-negotiable rule: it has to align with the natural order of growth. You can't reach those peak human attributes—like genuine intelligence, creativity, mental and physical health, and intuition—without maintaining a pure inner essence. That essence is the engine behind real spiritual evolution.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Look, there’s certainly a wide variety of people in this discussion. But if you think about it, religion, by its very definition, acts as a middleman between an individual and the spiritual—the soul, or whatever term you prefer to use for that higher connection. By inserting itself into that space, it actually makes direct contact harder to achieve, all while serving as a tool to manipulate the masses for purely material gains. I'm not saying there aren't some good people within these institutions, but fundamentally, I believe organized religion ends up being detrimental to the human spirit.

I agree that organized religion feels like a cage, but we have to realize that the mechanistic dogma pushed by the materialistic scientific paradigm is just another version of the same thing.

Sam Martinez9 said:You asked me what spirituality means to me.

I already told you—that falls entirely within the realm of the human spirit.

For instance, I laid out several different facets of the human spirit. I’m honestly not quite sure why you’ve fixated on art specifically; that is merely one expression of our inner life. At no point did I suggest that spirituality and art were one and the same.

Beyond that, I also took the liberty of listing several other pursuits of the human spirit.

Fair point, but that sounds more like describing basic human processes. Those can happen regardless of whether someone is spiritually grounded or not. Both a deeply spiritual person and someone who hasn't developed that side of themselves can engage in those activities—but there's still a massive difference in how they approach them.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Ether, right? Exactly—spirituality is found in people and in oneself, not tucked away in holy books or the nonsense charlatans post online.

So, I’ll stick to my original point: spirituality is actually more accessible to atheists than it is to believers.

There’s a huge group of people calling themselves atheists who don't actually fit the mold. Their views lean toward higher intelligence rather than those rigid, mechanistic paradigms people usually associate with atheism.

Spirituality is right there within reach for everyone. It's the ultimate expression of one's own Ownership. It really just comes down to paying attention—learning to notice things that exist outside of mental conventions, beyond internal determinism, and past the trickery of our senses. Because of that, believing in some version of God or clinging to strict mechanistic laws doesn't actually make spiritual realization any easier or harder. To truly experience spirituality, all of that has to become irrelevant. You have to move past the standard intellectual setup and that thing everyone swears by called "reason," which, if you ask me, isn't much more than self-hypnosis and pure fantasy.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, spirituality is simply the active expression of the human spirit. It’s found in art, painting, sculpture, music, science, architecture, the drive to research, the urge to discover, and the pursuit of knowledge... I could go on forever, but all these endeavors are products of the human spirit, and therefore, they fall under the umbrella of spirituality.

Which, naturally, implies that atheists are just as spiritual as anyone else; they aren't "non-spiritual" beings.

An atheist might compose a breathtaking symphony, and since composing music is a spiritual act, the distinction becomes moot. A cat, for instance, isn't going to sit down and write a concerto.

What you're listing sounds more like the realm of artistic expression, and a person doesn't necessarily have to be "spiritual" to engage in that.

It’s true that spiritual people are often drawn to the arts, but that’s just a conventional connection. There are plenty of deeply spiritual people with highly developed spirits who might not participate in anything within your specific definition of "spirituality."

To me, spirituality is simply a highly developed human nature. It isn't just about having a certain talent or an affinity for something, nor is it split into whether someone is a believer in God or an atheist.

When I talk about human nature, I mean those qualities that make us human—qualities that are often suppressed in most people by dominant social forces. These external pressures act as a force stronger than individual will, causing people to stick to certain habits out of ignorance rather than following the internal principles that would actually help their human nature flourish.

So, in both cases—whether it's someone pursuing art without living a spiritual life, or someone whose deep spirituality manifests as what looks like mere talent to the average person—we are talking about human nature. In the first case, usually only one segment is fulfilled while much else is neglected. In the second, there is a developed spirit that presents itself to others as a gift, much like the great minds throughout history—be they philosophers, theologians, poets, painters, scientists, or simply enlightened souls who lived before we started putting labels on everything.

Spirituality definitely involves creativity, but not just in the traditional sense. It’s much broader. It’s an internal quality: knowledge, understanding, capability, and a heightened awareness that lives in harmony with oneself, others, and the natural world. It's a functional state that is free from systematic negative thoughts and toxic emotions.

Someone plagued by compulsive behaviors might be a respected artist, but they’ll struggle to be a truly spiritual person because they haven't actually realized or manifested their spirituality.

Anyway, none of this is going to show up in this PDF; this kind of stuff belongs in a different kind of "artistic PDF." 🙂

Sam Martinez9 said:Thanks.

You’ve helped me realize—much faster than I expected—that there’s nothing for me here.

My personal take is that this "Spirituality" forum is actually devoid of any true spirituality. I've only spent a few hours browsing, so my perspective might be skewed, but I don't see anything spiritual happening here, regardless of how they choose to define the word.

So, what does spirituality look like to you? How does it actually show up in people?

Justin Garcia7 said:When people hear the term "lone wolf," they usually think of social outcasts—people who struggle to make friends, feel disconnected, or just can't navigate a crowd. They picture the emotionally wounded or the extreme introverts.

But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m referring to people who actually have plenty of friends, love going out, and are totally approachable and outgoing. They aren't oddballs; they just happen to prefer their own company most of the time because they genuinely enjoy being alone.

I’ve met a few people like this, and they all describe themselves as old souls. They aren't particularly interested in worldly pursuits and tend to view themselves as spiritual people.

This ties back to the concept of introversion versus extroversion. There’s a common misconception that personality is defined by these labels, but I read somewhere that it’s really about where you draw your energy—from being around others or from being by yourself. For instance, a colleague of mine is incredibly talkative and social; she makes friends effortlessly and screams "extrovert" to anyone watching. Yet, she describes herself as a lone wolf who finds her greatest peace in solitude. On the flip side, I know so many people who can't stand being alone. They feel bored without distraction, constantly inviting people over, and often admit they feel empty when they aren't in someone's company.

I’m one of them myself. Instead of heading out tonight, I’d much rather meditate, dive into a book, contemplate, observe, build my inner world, or work on writing.😁 I find that being alone is the only way I can truly "center" myself, returning to that point of calm and balance before I head back out to face the world again.

To be clear, I know plenty of people with actual social struggles or emotional baggage who call themselves "old souls" or "spiritual" simply because they don't know how to connect with others or lack a support system. This post isn't about them. It's about emotionally mature, well-adjusted individuals who have everything they need, yet choose solitude as their primary source of energy.

I’d argue that these true lone wolves are more deeply connected to their authentic selves. What do you all think?

When you are truly yourself, you are always "with" yourself—whether you’re stuck inside four walls, sitting in a local diner, or standing in a crowded stadium.
Of course, once you reach maturity, you aren't driven by that desperate need for an "adrenaline rush" just to feel alive. Most people chase nights out or constant activities simply to fill a void that would otherwise turn into boredom. They go to places just because "that's where everyone goes."

What actually matters to us isn't the same thing society "offers" or pushes on us. Most social trends are basically just a circus. People who get caught up in that circus end up living through its chaos and suffering its consequences. But for someone who doesn't identify with the spectacle, they can observe the circus without being touched by it. They can step onto the stage and play a role when necessary—because unfortunately, that’s the life we have to navigate on this planet right now.

If someone wants to stay true to their Path and avoid the circus entirely, they might physically or mentally check out. But even that "checking out" shouldn't just be about taking a break for the sake of resting. If you really want to move forward on your Path, your interaction with the circus becomes a form of indirect service. It’s not just internal work; it’s helping those who are living through the madness without realizing it—those who feel the sting and the bite of it on their own skin.

wearyowl29 said:It’s almost like life itself isn't already doing a pretty great job of advertising its own craziness...🤣

Honestly, there's a certain level of absurdity in thinking you actually need someone to explain absurdity to you while being absolutely absurd yourself!😁

I was only joking. 🙂

Look, at the end of the day, we don't actually experience "life" outside of our own heads. We never truly feel anything beyond our own senses. In that sense, we’re talking about the exact same thing—I was only joking, but I bet you feel the same way. 😁

wearyowl29 said:Do we need crosses hanging in every government building just to recognize that life is full of suffering and injustice?

And honestly, do we even need religion to teach us how to live our lives?

We need it. We need it to make sense of the sheer absurdity of life—how one thing says one thing, another thing does the exact opposite, and a third thing thinks something else entirely.

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

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

There’s no such thing as a "free" person on a "wrong path." If someone thinks they're being free while being driven around by their own intrusive thoughts, old memories, or fantasies about the future, they don't actually understand what freedom is. They're just living in a self-imposed delusion.

True freedom only belongs to the person who has let go of negative thinking—the one who has fixed their mindset and aligned it with the will of the creator. In short, freedom is found in balance.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Every "truth" in Buddhism is interconnected... that’s really all I was getting at. It's where you clearly see the whole point about there being no permanent self.

You can apply this stuff philosophically and actually see results—and yeah, obviously, if you go all in, the payoff is even bigger... though even that's relative, I guess. Just look at Siddhartha’s story—he had to figure it out for himself to become awakened.

It’s like a dream... at its core, Hinduism is just this incredibly deep philosophy. 😉 I gotta admit, even those ancient sages... it feels like Buddhism is either moving forward or some versions are just picking up speed lately.

I feel like we were just hitting on this yesterday... you know, those points you made about there being no permanent self or soul... and how consciousness exists for those who are awake (plus that bit about how Buddhism is basically just silence rather than the absolute truth). Obviously, I’m still leaning on Buddhist philosophy here, but I'm starting to see the point behind the non-existence thing.
it's more of an experiential vibe for me.

If you haven't truly grasped the core principles, they're right—Buddhism can feel just as much like a cage as any other religion, especially since certain doctrines have become quite dogmatic.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Every "truth" in Buddhism is interconnected... that’s really all I was getting at. It's where you clearly see the whole point about there being no permanent self.

You can apply this stuff philosophically and actually see results—and yeah, obviously, if you go all in, the payoff is even bigger... though even that's relative, I guess. Just look at Siddhartha’s story—he had to figure it out for himself to become awakened.

It’s like a dream... at its core, Hinduism is just this incredibly deep philosophy. 😉 I gotta admit, even those ancient sages... it feels like Buddhism is either moving forward or some versions are just picking up speed lately.

I feel like we were just hitting on this yesterday... you know, those points you made about there being no permanent self or soul... and how consciousness exists for those who are awake (plus that bit about how Buddhism is basically just silence rather than the absolute truth). Obviously, I’m still leaning on Buddhist philosophy here, but I'm starting to see the point behind the non-existence thing.
it's more of an experiential vibe for me.

I didn't just become who Siddhartha was on my own. It’s the same for Jesus, or anyone else who reached liberation. Everyone needs an initiation to get there, even if they don't realize it at the start—guided by the perfect teachers of that era.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Every "truth" in Buddhism is interconnected... that’s really all I was getting at. It's where you clearly see the whole point about there being no permanent self.

You can apply this stuff philosophically and actually see results—and yeah, obviously, if you go all in, the payoff is even bigger... though even that's relative, I guess. Just look at Siddhartha’s story—he had to figure it out for himself to become awakened.

It’s like a dream... at its core, Hinduism is just this incredibly deep philosophy. 😉 I gotta admit, even those ancient sages... it feels like Buddhism is either moving forward or some versions are just picking up speed lately.

I feel like we were just hitting on this yesterday... you know, those points you made about there being no permanent self or soul... and how consciousness exists for those who are awake (plus that bit about how Buddhism is basically just silence rather than the absolute truth). Obviously, I’m still leaning on Buddhist philosophy here, but I'm starting to see the point behind the non-existence thing.
it's more of an experiential vibe for me.

Progress stops exactly where an individual stops. Doctrine is one thing, but direct spiritual experience is an entirely different beast. You simply can't extract Truth just by reading words on a page; those texts are merely signposts that you have to encounter personally through your own spiritual growth—assuming, of course, they were passed down correctly in the first place.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Every "truth" in Buddhism is interconnected... that’s really all I was getting at. It's where you clearly see the whole point about there being no permanent self.

You can apply this stuff philosophically and actually see results—and yeah, obviously, if you go all in, the payoff is even bigger... though even that's relative, I guess. Just look at Siddhartha’s story—he had to figure it out for himself to become awakened.

It’s like a dream... at its core, Hinduism is just this incredibly deep philosophy. 😉 I gotta admit, even those ancient sages... it feels like Buddhism is either moving forward or some versions are just picking up speed lately.

I feel like we were just hitting on this yesterday... you know, those points you made about there being no permanent self or soul... and how consciousness exists for those who are awake (plus that bit about how Buddhism is basically just silence rather than the absolute truth). Obviously, I’m still leaning on Buddhist philosophy here, but I'm starting to see the point behind the non-existence thing.
it's more of an experiential vibe for me.

I wasn't trying to look at this through anyone's specific lens. I was just pointing out a universal phenomenon that gets overrated in Buddhism—mostly because so many people fail to take that final step toward their actual goal, mistakenly thinking Nirvana itself is the finish line. In other mystical traditions, this state is correctly viewed as just a stepping stone toward true Liberation. This is something all humans experience throughout history; you and I actually enter a version of "Nirvana" every single night while we sleep, we just aren't conscious of it. When someone enters that state of pure Consciousness, they are aware of nothing else, and that’s the bottom line.

Thomas Nelson25 said:If you actually tried to live by Buddhist methods, you'd realize all those preconceptions—the mysticism and the mental gymnastics—are just more ways of clinging. At the end of the day, even Buddhism itself becomes just another thing to hold onto.

It really depends on how you look at it—I mean, what if this whole spacetime illusion is just a bust? If that’s the case, everything changes... suddenly, those past lives don't even exist.

You were talking about that "pure soul" concept—you know, the one who’s basically seen it all (like Buddha preaching about morality and paths to salvation and those enlightened types)... and honestly, Buddhists take it a step further. They're like, okay, fine, but even that's just another attachment. Beyond all that lies the absolute truth.

Effective methods are all about facilitating a gradual involution of consciousness. Regardless of how they're officially categorized, if they actually produce results within the individual mind, then they're valid tools for making real progress.

For some people, Buddhism is just a label—a word they toss around without much thought. For others, it’s a way to identify with something that feels "cool" or fits neatly into their existing worldview. Then there are those for whom it's something else entirely. But for the rare few who actually live it—those for whom this isn't a hobby, but Life itself—it serves as a genuine vehicle for growth. Whether they are standing at the edge of the trail or are already walking it, they use it to truly progress. Of course, those individuals are incredibly rare among hundreds of millions of followers.
I don't care much about what people label "Buddhism." To me, it’s more about the natural phenomena mentioned in those teachings and elsewhere. It's about recognizing how things actually work—understanding the underlying laws of cause and effect. That kind of insight is simply the byproduct of putting in the honest work to truly grasp your own experiences, then taking what you've learned and using it to move forward.

Thomas Nelson25 said:If you actually tried to live by Buddhist methods, you'd realize all those preconceptions—the mysticism and the mental gymnastics—are just more ways of clinging. At the end of the day, even Buddhism itself becomes just another thing to hold onto.

It really depends on how you look at it—I mean, what if this whole spacetime illusion is just a bust? If that’s the case, everything changes... suddenly, those past lives don't even exist.

You were talking about that "pure soul" concept—you know, the one who’s basically seen it all (like Buddha preaching about morality and paths to salvation and those enlightened types)... and honestly, Buddhists take it a step further. They're like, okay, fine, but even that's just another attachment. Beyond all that lies the absolute truth.

I don't deal with those kinds of dilemmas. Those doubts only hit people who haven't experienced this yet or just don't get it—so it makes total sense that they'd struggle. It’s completely natural. 🙂
You can look at life as being a lot like a dream. It’s unreal. On one hand, it feels illusory because everything is happening entirely inside our own heads. On the other hand, once you actually attain wisdom, life loses its overwhelming grip on you—it just becomes one more minor detail among many.

Thomas Nelson25 said:If you actually tried to live by Buddhist methods, you'd realize all those preconceptions—the mysticism and the mental gymnastics—are just more ways of clinging. At the end of the day, even Buddhism itself becomes just another thing to hold onto.

It really depends on how you look at it—I mean, what if this whole spacetime illusion is just a bust? If that’s the case, everything changes... suddenly, those past lives don't even exist.

You were talking about that "pure soul" concept—you know, the one who’s basically seen it all (like Buddha preaching about morality and paths to salvation and those enlightened types)... and honestly, Buddhists take it a step further. They're like, okay, fine, but even that's just another attachment. Beyond all that lies the absolute truth.

I didn't actually use the term "pure soul." All I ever said was "pure mind," which refers to an evolved consciousness at higher stages of the spiritual Trail. Honestly, I’m not sure how you’re connecting my actual words to what you claim someone else wrote.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So why are you so hung up on a concept like that? 😁

It’s basically what people call karma—a spatio-temporal... illusion. It's an attachment to these preconceived notions of a permanent self—basically this craving for unity with God, which is really just another psychological craving, right? In the end, once you reach perfect consciousness, that perfectly awake self dissolves within itself. That's the Buddha... it’s way more abstract than some kind of bliss that almost anyone can experience during a momentary trance—not that a trance is the same thing, obviously.

To you, it’s just an abstract concept.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So why are you so hung up on a concept like that? 😁

It’s basically what people call karma—a spatio-temporal... illusion. It's an attachment to these preconceived notions of a permanent self—basically this craving for unity with God, which is really just another psychological craving, right? In the end, once you reach perfect consciousness, that perfectly awake self dissolves within itself. That's the Buddha... it’s way more abstract than some kind of bliss that almost anyone can experience during a momentary trance—not that a trance is the same thing, obviously.

Karma is one thing, but Maya is an entirely different beast.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So why are you so hung up on a concept like that? 😁

It’s basically what people call karma—a spatio-temporal... illusion. It's an attachment to these preconceived notions of a permanent self—basically this craving for unity with God, which is really just another psychological craving, right? In the end, once you reach perfect consciousness, that perfectly awake self dissolves within itself. That's the Buddha... it’s way more abstract than some kind of bliss that almost anyone can experience during a momentary trance—not that a trance is the same thing, obviously.

It feels like you’re just staring at the facts and realizing everything is exactly how you thought it would be. 🙂 Look, that's not what I said, and it’s definitely not what I’m talking about.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, Hindus and Buddhists have pretty similar models up to a certain point—side note: who was Buddha before he actually became Buddha? Anyway, if we're being real, "Buddha" should probably just be called "Yoga." Both concepts definitely share some DNA, but they aren't identical. The real kicker is that whole idea regarding the lack of anything permanent... I don't think that's quite Brahman. It’s kind of like the Kabbalistic tree—there's this state of relative silence where you basically become what you've attained.

It’s like a temporary exit from our dimension—nothing permanent, though once you die, you basically take that ride for good because, well, you know exactly when the clock runs out. After that? It’s game over. Time and space just cease to exist, and that's when you start bumping into all those absurdities and Paradoxes that only the enlightened really get. 😉

The Paradox is strictly for the average mind. "Death" is really just the doorway into experiencing the Highness. Life itself is nothing more than a dream, not Reality.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Well, their whole metaphysics revolves around suffering, impermanence... and the idea that nothing lasts, not even me or the soul.

I called it controversial—not just my take, everyone says it (you already knew that, right 😉) —but I haven't personally experienced it, so I can't tell you for sure. Still, it makes sense to me... just strip away space and time and you've got nirvana.

Suffering stems from mother nature itself—specifically, how we perceive anything "outside" ourselves. We see a chaotic collection of distinct shapes and objects, which creates this illusion of separation or individuality. At the same time, we view ourselves as isolated, limited entities.

So, it’s not that the world is an illusion in the sense that it doesn't exist at all (even if its physical, subtle, and mental layers are constantly shifting). Rather, the issue is the mental impression that this world is a separate reality. We miss out on experiencing the true nature of consciousness (the soul), which is eternal—not as a constant state of change, but as the fundamental Being that exists outside of space and time.

The whole concept of an individual "soul" comes from this mistaken idea of a detached consciousness—a sense of being "someone" before any personality even develops. It's a universal experience, but in that framework, a separate soul can't actually exist. In reality, there is only soul one, indivisible. You just can't perceive it because you're stuck in a state of consciousness where you only encounter the emptiness of Nirvana. It's like how there's a "first-degree fan" level that mirrors Nirvana, similar to Sufi gnosis, but there's also a "second-degree fan" state that Gautama didn't emphasize. Nowadays, people tend to treat 'Nirvana' as the ultimate finish line.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Well, their whole metaphysics revolves around suffering, impermanence... and the idea that nothing lasts, not even me or the soul.

I called it controversial—not just my take, everyone says it (you already knew that, right 😉) —but I haven't personally experienced it, so I can't tell you for sure. Still, it makes sense to me... just strip away space and time and you've got nirvana.

It's just that classic spiritual paradox, whether you call it God, Nirvana, or some specific "state of peace." Ultimately, this is a natural experience for the smallest among us—people who have matured according to the way our very genes are wired. Any attempt to explain it is really just an echo or a shadow of the truth, but we shouldn't question whether such an experience is even possible.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, I'm thinking... if there's no attachment (mostly emotions, then sensations, thoughts, abstractions, etc.—you know the drill), and there's no consciousness at all (whatever kind you mean), are you talking about an experience?

We've got mystical experiences that drive emotions, and then there's the intuitive side—without the hype. Personally, I think the latter is way better for actual realization.

Or like what Buddhists say... sort of like "seeing things as they truly are."

That’s actually the fundamental requirement for any human being—which really means seeing without being weighed down by memory.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, I'm thinking... if there's no attachment (mostly emotions, then sensations, thoughts, abstractions, etc.—you know the drill), and there's no consciousness at all (whatever kind you mean), are you talking about an experience?

We've got mystical experiences that drive emotions, and then there's the intuitive side—without the hype. Personally, I think the latter is way better for actual realization.

Or like what Buddhists say... sort of like "seeing things as they truly are."

That would just be an idea, then. Everything taught by Buddhists (Gautama Buddha) is meant to be rooted in actual lived experience, not some made-up concept or just believing in a fiction. In that sense, Consciousness is the only thing that matters. The difference lies in how one perceives it relative to its content—where the mind becomes empty and experiences 'Niban,' which is the gateway to Realization.

Without Consciousness, there is neither perception nor any kind of experience—whether "permanent" or "impermanent." Everything happens exclusively within Consciousness (God).

Thomas Nelson25 said:There's no soul or permanent self—everything is just fleeting and depends on how much the "I" clings to this or that, or even just clinging to itself... that's the core controversy in Buddhism, along with the idea that God doesn't exist. There's a whole mountain of paradoxes there, but whatever—we aren't here to debate Buddhism, and I'm not trying to be some preacher or anything. It's just stuff people either vibe with or don't.

But there is 'Consciousness' that acts as the observer of that state. It exists, period. 🙂 Of course, if someone defines 'consciousness' differently than how I’m using it, they won't understand why I'm bringing it up. To me, consciousness isn't just being 'self-aware.' Consciousness is simply the 'is-ness' of it all, whether it's manifested or not.

Still, we can definitely lean on Buddhist concepts here, since they really sit at the very heart of that entire philosophy.