Posts by Sandra Murphy33

Reductionism is actually more tedious than religion, which just chalks everything up to God's will
🥱

At its core, both are merely reflections of the animalistic instincts we’re trying to outgrow—those primal urges obsessed with primacy, precedence, and origin. It’s all about being first, being the alpha, the root cause, the primordial particle, the absolute beginning...
etc., etc.

The past that "haunts you like a ghost" is actually your present 😉
If you claim your "past is following you," then it isn't really the past at all—it’s part of your current reality because it hasn't truly passed yet.

The "past" doesn't exist as an independent entity; it’s just a label.
Sure, certain events might be recorded on some medium, but those records exist right now, in this moment, right here. They aren't tucked away in some imaginary bygone era.

So many things we desperately wish were behind us remain stubbornly with us. In fact, they often feel more present than they ever did, though they manifest differently: as unwanted burdens or lingering resentments. This persistent presence—these old stories and phenomena we force ourselves to dwell on, often due to deep-seated cultural or societal conditioning—is precisely where we should look to find the root of our frustration and helplessness.
Realizing that the source of this struggle lies within our own minds is what ultimately sets us free.
Because willpower and intention operate on a level above the mere mechanics of thought.

In short, every single moment carries the potential to be a fresh start or a definitive end. Our will makes the choice—provided we have the capacity to exercise it, which, quite often, we 🙂
do.

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

That is a incredibly tricky distinction, Volver.
If he hasn't actually seen the person he's talking to, how did he experience them as a woman?
Is it based on their "softness, gentleness, or kindness," etc.—those universal human virtues that, for some reason, are subconsciously tethered to biological females? 🤔

By doubling down on gender ideology, you actually end up reinforcing biological sex even further. I can only hope one of these social experimenters realizes that, or perhaps one of the influential figures backing them might...
It would be far more intelligent and prudent to return to Jungian psychology on this matter—discussing the so-called inner feminine, the Animus, or the inner masculine, the Animus, or perhaps even introducing Yin and Yang concepts that aren't strictly tied to biological sex...

Western politics and the general political direction of the West is profoundly foolish and destructive.

Regarding that, and your experiment reminded me of this, I recalled a time back in the early days of the internet in America, when I met someone in a chat room who I really connected with—even though his nickname was male and my mental image of him was 😎
He was the sensitive, intelligent Yin, and I was the wild Yang (by modern terminology, does that mean he was a woman and I was a man? ... even though neither of us were biologically either 🙂 ).
Then, he got angry with me. He refused to talk to me anymore and would leave whenever I showed up. But to him, I was nothing more than my username (and whatever preconceived notion lived in his head). It turned out all I had to do was change my name to continue talking to this interesting being. First, I switched to another female name, but I didn't find real success until I returned as a male.

Isn't it tragic that in order to reach his soul, I had to "become" a man within a male body...?

There is a film by B. Streisand on this theme, and a novel by Erika Jong, but what I find puzzling is that the women in those stories—who disguise themselves as men for various reasons—still remain in love, as women, with the men who perceive them as men! That is the element that fails for me; it just isn't believable....

What a joke.
It sounds like we're talking about people living in a literal hellscape... or perhaps just some half-baked nationalists who seek to divide and conquer—as if the very spirit of analytical thought has finally fallen ill and begun to metastasize 🤔

This is a vivid illustration of the gap between mindless herd mentality—clinging to whatever political fad or supposed "value" is currently trending—and true individual critical thinking. It’s the refusal to forget what one already knows, rather than hitting a mental reset button just because some idiot decided to go on a crusade to reshape the world to fit their own personal whims.

History will likely label this phenomenon as the "evolution of human consciousness"🙂

I’ve wandered into the off-topic section (but what else can you do when there isn't a single thread dedicated to the concept of 🤷), yet I feel compelled to suggest that if we are looking for a primary indicator of humanity, the first criterion should be relationship.

Humanity isn't defined (at least not primarily) by the deeds one leaves behind—those are merely petrified remnants 😬—rather, it is manifested through the relationship an individual establishes with anyone or anything else.
The more dynamic the relationship I maintain with a non-Self (an object), the more humanity is generated.
Because the Self, through its relationship with an object, animates that object 🙂; by granting it importance and life, by placing it on a pedestal alongside itself, the Self expands its own self-awareness.
Whether it involves another living being, an action, or even something abstract, whatever the Self engages with actively, that object of attention becomes illuminated—it becomes alive, present not just within the consciousness of the Self, but within the world at large. This act of bestowing attention is a creative act par excellence—because in doing so, the Self creates another "Self," granting it the status of a subject equal to its own—and that is the very essence of humanity.

Precisely.

However, when we ignore and completely abstract away the paradox of being—simply because there are no established criteria for it, or rather, because we lack the capacity to define its true significance—we easily fall into a state of one-dimensionality. In doing so, we inevitably construct a one-dimensional world for ourselves.

ruggedraven36 said:We don't have a precise definition, sure—but we know it when we see it. How are we supposed to get a perfect handle on humanity when humans themselves aren't exactly precise creatures?

Therefore, nothing else can truly be considered "exact" either.

David Robinson26 said:However absurd these constructs may be, they are precisely what define a person, encompassing all their virtues and flaws alike.

Blah, blah, blah...
It’s all just political posturing to you, 😉
including that much-vaunted concept of "humanity." The truth is, nobody can actually define what a human being is or what they represent.
It's just empty talk without any substance.

As far as I’m concerned, these identity games are just nonsense—they're essentially fake and fundamentally non-existent.
What actually dies when a person passes away is, first and foremost, the collection of identities and roles they cling to (including gender, which is strictly a byproduct of the body, the "earthly vessel")

That’s what happens when they try to turn the kind of empathy and understanding Sigmund Freud talked about into actual legislation.
Over the last few decades, we have seen countless attempts of this nature. Coercion is a subtle, creeping thing. It doesn't always arrive with a sledgehammer; more often, it shows up as a series of small, calculated pressures designed to erode a person's autonomy until they feel they have no choice but to comply. People like to talk about freedom as if it’s an absolute, but in reality, social and professional environments are constantly exerting silent force to steer individual behavior toward a specific, predetermined outcome. It’s a mechanism of control that operates under the guise of necessity or "the greater good." Whether it's through economic leverage, emotional manipulation, or institutional pressure, the goal remains the same: to bypass a person's genuine will. Once you start making concessions to these quiet demands, you find yourself in a position where the ability to say "no" becomes increasingly expensive, both socially and practically. It is a slow process of diminishing returns on one's own agency. The constant push for "empathy" toward minorities and anyone deemed different—this whole obsession with political correctness—often backfires. It actually erodes the kind of natural, innate acceptance people usually have by creating a sense of forced compliance. When you try to legislate compassion, you just trigger resistance. Take your attitude, for example, lonegardener. 😉

Once again, we have to contend with the need to understand those incredibly prideful members of certain ambivalent factions who... They just won't. It’s about moving away from the hope that people will act out of empathy or compassion. Instead, the goal is to cement one's own status and perspective by codifying them into law.

Gregory Jackson said:I mean, I guess it's really just about the hopeless limitations of human language, you know? And honestly, it's probably just our own inability to truly grasp the actual nature and attributes of Being. We could call it "The Absolute," or whatever, because we have to call it something somehow, right? I don't think there's any weird gendered conspiracy going on here.
The closest we ever get to understanding Him/Her is through those great spiritual teachers or people with real insight. From that perspective, we know enough—like, an encyclopedic level of knowledge—to give us what we need, considering how much we're capable of grasping about a Being that is so far beyond anything we actually know.

So, hey, feel free not to worship God, or whatever choice you want to make.

There’s no need to call out His name or invoke Him at all.😉
The logic is straightforward: As long as He exists and we are relying on Him, we remain children. We remain weak.
Psychologically speaking, this is just a classic case of displacing our own authority and power onto something external.

Gregory Jackson said:I mean, I guess it's really just about the hopeless limitations of human language, you know? And honestly, it's probably just our own inability to truly grasp the actual nature and attributes of Being. We could call it "The Absolute," or whatever, because we have to call it something somehow, right? I don't think there's any weird gendered conspiracy going on here.
The closest we ever get to understanding Him/Her is through those great spiritual teachers or people with real insight. From that perspective, we know enough—like, an encyclopedic level of knowledge—to give us what we need, considering how much we're capable of grasping about a Being that is so far beyond anything we actually know.

So, hey, feel free not to worship God, or whatever choice you want to make.

If I worship a god, I am essentially admitting that I am separate from Him. I'm acknowledging that He is something I am not, and I am something He is not. It implies we are two distinct entities rather than one. By doing that, I strip Him of the title of totality; if I have to address Him, then He isn't "All That Is," because I exist outside of Him.

It is more accurate to say that God expresses His creation through me—that He is me—rather than suggesting we are divided.
It is more truthful to accept that I am God, and therefore it is my responsibility as a living being to learn the laws of existence. This is much more grounded than pretending I am some isolated entity just so God can maintain the facade of being omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal—some elusive force on the "other side" that I, as part of this decaying material world, am forever excluded from.

A God who creates a world and then stands outside of it, occasionally intervening just to ensure that His creation pays Him homage, would be a cosmic-scale ego maniac. And a world built on that premise is doomed from the very beginning.

Every time you bring up God, you default to masculine pronouns.
By doing that, you aren't just claiming that the intelligence, love, kindness, wisdom, and beauty that constitutes All That Is is a "being"—you're also implying that this being possesses gendered, or at least energetic, polarities. Are you suggesting that God is defined? That He is this way rather than that? 🤔

That simply cannot be the Absolute.

You need to realize you’re worshipping a golden calf.
Or more accurately, you're worshipping Vol. 😉

Why is God depicted in the masculine gender...?

Sandra Murphy33 said:Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

Actually, the phrase should have been "clinically precise."
I don't want anyone getting the impression that I consider Steiner (or anyone else) an "expert" on the 😁 otherworldly
in the way we define human expertise.
By the way, word choice matters; the terminology we select when communicating with others isn't trivial. Language needs to be a shared, universal foundation—not a situation where a word means one thing to me and something entirely different to you. If that happens, you aren't having a conversation; you're just delivering a monologue in a kingdom of pure subjectivity...

Gregory Jackson said:So, I guess, does he have any specific book you'd recommend?

Well, I mean, the idea of us and God within us is definitely a religious element 🙂 Worshipping God is one of the spiritual paths—probably the most important and "widest" one, if you ask me. I suppose you're emphasizing a kind of spirituality that has existed forever, totally independent of organized religion. Like what Meher Baba used to say—"God doesn't belong to any religion; all religions belong to God."

Yeah, I really love those descriptions and images of hers too. You have to keep in mind that those are all spiritual energies (angels are just some of them) that react to requests for healing or even just to the intention of a healer, provided they're as spiritually developed as Barbara. I hope she's still doing okay; she must be getting up there in years. I actually stumbled upon her third major book recently, though I haven't quite gotten around to reading it yet.

Oh wow, thanks so much for sharing that! I totally get that you should probably ask for some support or guidance before diving into anything major, though I’ve only really tried doing that a couple of times myself. I think I might try to 🙂 a bit more often now. You're basically asking them to take over the heavy lifting for you, haha...
Anyway, from what I gather, spiritual energies won't even budge a finger unless a person is already actively working toward a goal; that's when the assistance finally flows in. It's not like they just do everything for us while we sit around; we have to put in our part, at least the small bits that are within our control. Just a little side thought there, but you probably know better than anyone how much they've helped you.

I feel like I should mention that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I'm actually talking to, or really anyone else for that matter. It's just how the universe operates—if I reach out to God and the prayer is sincere, God isn't necessarily going to be the one to jump in immediately because there's this entire spiritual hierarchy beneath Him. Instead, a guardian angel or some other energy or entity that's a better fit for that specific request or need will respond. So, I guess he isn't wrong about how the response happens, but the request definitely went to the right address first. Even though a person could pray directly to a guardian angel, that first method seems a bit better and opens up way more possibilities for getting an answer.

And honestly, I feel like a lot of people who criticize Christianity don't even realize what they're actually criticizing. Sure, you can critique the church, the priests, certain practices, or even the holy books (since they were written by imperfect humans), but at its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find your life's purpose. If someone misses that essence and can't figure out how to direct their own life because they feel the church or the clergy is blocking their view, then they're really just critiquing their own spiritual level.

See, this notion of a "right address," along with the idea of a 😉 supreme overlord and a centralized Universe, is something I find fundamentally alien. It feels far too much like a patriarchy and everything associated with that structure for me to accept it.

That said, I’m not insisting that I’m right and that it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

I need to dig through my collection to find which specific book Steiner used to describe the transition between death and rebirth. I'll have to refresh my memory on his exact framework before I come back here to weigh in. 🙂

Look, the term "Christianity" itself isn't some divine revelation; it’s just a label concocted by people and institutions to house their own specific set of dogmas, rituals, and hierarchies. 😉
The whole structure carries about as much divine weight as any other organized group with its own arbitrary rules and ceremonies.

Even the word "God" feels inherently heavy—it carries this subconscious association with fear and punishment 😬 that tricks people into a state of false submission, all while providing endless opportunities for manipulation.

It isn't our place, nor is it within our capacity, to attempt to conceptualize or define divinity. We shouldn't be trying to trap the infinite within human contexts of time and space, or writing about it as if we are the masters of the divine rather than its creation.

Gregory Jackson said:I think I’m gonna go hunt down some Steiner, though honestly, I’ve only really skimmed a little bit of his stuff online so far. There’s also that Sylvia Braun lady with her book *Life After Life* and a few others that are pretty solid, plus Michael Newton too. And man, Daskalos is just such a totally realized, enlightened mystic—his Truth Seekers group is honestly top-tier. Oh, and Leadbiter as well! I feel like all of them add their own little flavor to the whole mystery of what actually happens between lives. I mean, even that *Emerald* stuff by those two Frenchmen who are like astral travelers... yeah, all that. Anyway, I just really want to dive into Steiner and see how he pieces his version of the puzzle together.

So, I was just thinking about why people even use that whole "angelic literature" label, you know? Like, what does that even mean really? Personally, I’m such a huge fan of Barbara B. Brennan—she is honestly just incredible when it comes to all that healing stuff. It feels like she’s the only one who really dives deep into things like Hari, that central star, and those more obscure details you just don't see everywhere else. She has this way of seeing energies that is just... wow, it's so incredibly good. I guess it's just her unique gift or something.

Maybe you could try tapping into that connection with the East, you know? I mean, Meher Baba—he was such an incredible avatar—he had this way of talking about all sorts of heavy topics, like life and death, in a way that just felt so simple and direct. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. But honestly, if there's one big thing I think we should all hold onto from what he taught, it's this: if we can just focus our thoughts on God at the exact moment of death, then we go straight to Him, and I guess that means there's no more being reborn here on Earth. Just total peace, maybe. 🙂 I mean, if we actually want to pull that off, I guess we’d pretty much have to keep Him on our minds every single day, you know? Like, it's not just a once-in-a-while thing, maybe we really need to be thinking about Him constantly if we're serious.

Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

Paul Ross2
Thanks for that deep dive into the relationship between numbers and music. Even if I don't quite grasp it on the first pass, I plan to sit with it and go through it several times. I’ll be leaning on my right brain—which moves slower but feels more accessible 😉—to help make sense of it all, hopefully triggering some intuition to stir up what’s already buried deep within the rapid, logical cells of my left hemisphere...

Since everything is interconnected—where numbers can be heard, sounds can be smelled, and images can be felt—I'm convinced that truth (which is essentially beauty and goodness combined; the same vibration expressed through different mediums) acts upon us even if we don't consciously understand it. Or even if we can't provide a rational explanation for why it feels so beneficial.

George Wood2 said:These explorations into unusual "out-of-body" consciousness phenomena are quite intriguing. Perhaps someone here might possess insight regarding the process of separating from one's physical form while in a state of full wakefulness, with eyes wide open. It felt almost like a mere overture to everything that followed.

To provide context, thirteen years ago, I was sitting outdoors in nature, simply waiting for the workday to conclude. About half an hour prior, I experienced a peculiar sensation—a strange feeling that something was about to occur.
I wasn't dwelling on any specific thoughts; I was merely relaxing and observing the landscape and the distant islands from a pine-covered clearing.
Suddenly, I felt myself slowly sliding out of my physical body toward the right side. I reached a point where I was halfway out. It was a completely conscious "slipping" away from the physical vessel, which remained entirely static.
The "entity" that emerged from the physical body was translucent, ethereal, and perhaps the most weightless sensation I have ever experienced through any form of consciousness. It was akin to direct perception without the need to reflect upon what was being observed. Pure consciousness, nothing more.

After several minutes, a progressively stronger pulling force began to act upon the physical part of my body, dragging me back toward my previous "normal" state. It was as if the physical body alone cannot sustain itself for long without what we might call a carrier, and without this "consciousness" of the physical form, the body cannot truly be conscious. Perhaps the body would simply become a zombie. But what would happen to a conscious body?
This persisted well into the evening, characterized by this incessant tugging as the body sought to pull my conscious self—which is essentially who I am—back into the integrated, default setting of a complete human being. It was a surreal experience to walk and drive my car home 🤣 feeling separated. Someone would undoubtedly describe it as being distracted. 😉

I do not consume any intoxicants, nor do I use any drugs. 🤣
From a psychological or psychiatric standpoint, this experience caused no harm to my mind or body, aside from providing a profound perception and a different perspective when viewing life outside of man's material and intellectual planes.

Does anyone happen to have information regarding a similar experience?

Your Ego core (Steiner) shifted away from your physical body along with the etheric and astral layers (though you remained present as an observer...), but it likely snapped back, pulled by that famous silver cord that "links" and holds the various bodily levels together. 🙂

I have always had memories of having my tonsils removed when I was four years old. To me, it was perfectly normal to remember the surgical mask, the scalpels, the gloved hands, and so on—until I grew up and learned that, theoretically, you aren't supposed to remember anything that happens while under anesthesia.

Charles Wood73 said:True enough. Lucid dreamers know they’re dreaming, astral travelers believe they’re in the astral realm, shamans claim to be wandering through one of three or nine different worlds, and partygoers know they managed to score some top-shelf stuff this time around... meanwhile, anthropologists will tell you the difference isn't found in the insight or the sensation itself, but rather in the cultural framework used to label it. 😬

I can wrap my head around all of them, except for the folks who blindly follow Leadbeater and his crowd instead of just trying things out for themselves to see what’s actually there. A gram of practice is worth more than a ton of theory.

🤣

Charles Wood73 said:True enough. Lucid dreamers know they’re dreaming, astral travelers believe they’re in the astral realm, shamans claim to be wandering through one of three or nine different worlds, and partygoers know they managed to score some top-shelf stuff this time around... meanwhile, anthropologists will tell you the difference isn't found in the insight or the sensation itself, but rather in the cultural framework used to label it. 😬

I can wrap my head around all of them, except for the folks who blindly follow Leadbeater and his crowd instead of just trying things out for themselves to see what’s actually there. A gram of practice is worth more than a ton of theory.

👍