Posts by Sandra Murphy33

Gregory Jackson said:Thanks, I’ll definitely give that a look. I’m really hoping Rinpoche goes a bit deeper than just the immediate post-mortem stuff, and honestly, I’m crossing my fingers that the language isn't too heavily tied to strict Buddhist terminology—otherwise, I might be stuck hovering over a dictionary the whole time.

I'm mostly curious about the actual roadmap of progress after we leave this material life, you know? Like, the whole process of moving through various astral planes after death while working through the exhaustion of desires, eventually hitting that second death, reaching Devachan, and all that good stuff... basically, what life and development actually look like in those spaces between incarnations.

On an intellectual and informational level, the best explanations I've found came from Tibetan teachings (The Book of Life and Death) and Steiner’s lectures regarding the interval between death and rebirth.👍

Later, I "supplemented" that knowledge with certain pieces of so-called angelic literature😁—specifically the works of Barbara B. Brennan. Her perspective felt credible to me precisely because she approaches things as a physicist. I’ve never been able to resonate with those gurus from the East; I’ve always gravitated toward Western thinkers. It makes me wonder if I was simply "learning" through a different channel back then.🙄

Paul Ross2 said:So what’s the actual issue?

Musical consonance usually boils down to ratios of small integers. Now, 4.056879877? That isn't a ratio of small integers.
A minor second is 16:15, a major second is 9:8, a major seventh is 16:9, and a minor seventh is 15:8. Then there’s the tritone—a staple in American jazz—which is 45/32, supposedly forbidden by the Church during the Middle Ages, who went as far as labeling it the "DEMONIC INTERVAL."

Here is another video regarding that notorious tritone (which some people claim is the soul of jazz, if not blues itself):

(At the 5:50 mark, the guy explains why it sounds dissonant, essentially describing the concept of SMALL INTEGER ratios in his own way—for instance, how 3:2 (a fifth) sounds consonant compared to something like sqrt(2)/1. Since sqrt(2) isn't an integer, you might approximate that ratio as 14:10 or 7:5, or even 45:32, given that 1.40625 is quite close to the square root of 2—we are talking about a difference only in the third decimal place here).

And now we arrive at the real question: why does our brain—or our ear—crave these small integer ratios? I won't be answering that, because frankly, the truth would likely disappoint most of you.

Is it just nerves...? 🙄

I can't recall exactly where I read this—it was ages ago—but there was a theory that the entire process of development and evolution actually serves one purpose: to strengthen and refine the nervous system.
It's almost as if the nerve is the core essence, the fundamental conductor, the sensory organ through which we receive the divine or the soul.

On a side note: I read Steiner a long time ago, and back then, he was a balm for my naive soul; I loved every sentence, the rhythm, the flow, the gentleness, and the ideas that felt like medicine and a breath of fresh air at the time...
I went back to read him today after several decades of silence, and honestly, it feels like I'm just spinning in circles ;( He repeats the same thing from the start to the end of the text, circling around the title as if it were an absolute claim, but he doesn't actually support that claim with any arguments. He just restates it in different ways... it's like a lullaby... or as if he's trying to hypnotize me into a state of mild resentment toward whatever his claim is. He puts me into a trance when what I am actually doing is waiting, hunting for something to feed my mind—something to give me information, actual substance I can chew on... instead, he just tosses me a bone to gnaw on, ensuring at least my teeth 😎 stay safe, and my jaw doesn't have to work too hard... there isn't much thinking involved... (you've probably heard Plečkov's assertion that a clenched jaw goes hand-in-hand with so-called "brain activity": deliberately relax your jaw and you'll shatter your usual grueling stream of thought... you break the elements 🙂

The body is a marvel.

Sorry for the tangent.

Why do we love "small integer ratios"?

(Does anyone else immediately think of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio when they hear that?)

Paul Rogers94 said:Image and sound are inseparable—one is born from the understanding gained through the experience of Devahan, and Devahan carries its own specific description: a sun rising over the mountains accompanied by powerful thunder (from a clear sky)—that image belongs to that sound; the sound is inseparable from the image.

I once started a thread titled is the universe real or unreal—here are some of my insights derived directly from that experience, just passing them along for the sake of clarity;

Is the manifest universe real or unreal?
It is neither real nor unreal.
It can only be real or unreal from a limited perspective.
Take, as a parable, the sight of the sun over the mountains.>
Is it rising or setting?
It is either rising or setting only from the viewpoint of the observer.
In itself, the sun knows nothing of rising or setting.
The sun doesn't even know it is the sun (it simply IS).
Conceptualization begins and ends within the mind.
From the "viewpoint" of the Absolute, there are no sunrises or sunsets.
Nor is there any sun that rises or sets.
The story of rising and setting is merely a fabrication.
Just like the story of reality and unreality.
There is nothing that is real or unreal.
Everything simply *is* as it is, without the narrative attached.
From the standpoint of relative consciousness—the standpoint of the mind—it necessarily must be either rising or setting.
The mind "forces" you to adopt a viewpoint, so depending on where you look from, it is either rising or setting.
By its very nature, the mind lacks the capacity to grasp any idea that does not have its opposite.
For the mind, no absolute category exists; it reduces everything to its own level.
Meaning, it must be either real or unreal, either existing or non-existing.
The mind is the universe.
The mind consists of mental contents.
The mind cannot experience absolute reality directly; instead, it perceives it through concepts and ideas.
What we commonly refer to as reality (the manifest universe) is merely our interpretation—the interpretation of the mind.
Directly experienced reality knows nothing of concepts or minds.
From the "standpoint" of the Absolute, there is no compulsion to conceptually define one's viewpoint (and that is precisely the "freedom from" that spirituality actually strives for).
For the Absolute, there are no concepts.
There is no existence or non-existence.
There is no reality or unreality.
There is no absolute or relative.
There is no me and others.

There is nothing to choose, nor is there anyone to do the choosing.
There is no separation from the so-called supreme reality.
Nor is there anyone striving toward it.
Because there is nothing except the supreme reality.
Except we don't know that.

This game of enlightenment is merely a play of the mind.

Consequently, for the mind, there is no such thing as an absolute, and for the Absolute, there is no such thing as a mind.

Everything you've written here is also conceptualization.
Essentially, it is an attempt to conceptualize the Non-conceptual secret.😉

In religion, this is called godlessness: the desire to be more than what you are, to see more than you can, to comprehend more than you have been given.
From your limited perspective, you are trying to reach the Unlimited, to step outside of perspective itself, to exit who you are right here and now by denying both: the Here and the Now...
In doing so, you prevent the Unlimited, Reality, That Which Is, the Truth, the Absolute, etc., from being.

Here is how I see it: the Invisible desired to see itself, but to do so, it had to clothe itself in the Visible. The phenomena of the relative, apparent world are the garments the Invisible donned so it could manifest itself. Thus, the Invisible is simultaneously every one of those garments and every phenomenon of the visible world—and yet, it is none of them.
What you are attempting is to unclothe the Invisible 😬, to strip it of the garment through which it alone can manifest itself, thereby terminating its—or its own—Game.

Is it possible that the Invisible—or Reality itself—is trying to shed its clothing through you?
How can we verify this?
By the results, of course.
Are you actually capable of being neither the garment nor the mind?
No. 😛
Therefore, something else within you is operating—a secondary will running alongside the will of the Invisible. That second force is the ego, and by its very nature, it is powerless against the Invisible. You cannot simply stop using your mind, and even if you manage to do so, you remain tethered to a physical body. This means any "struggle," or even just a simple reluctance toward the mind and body, is unnecessary, unnatural, and predetermined to fail.
Just be what you are—here and now.
Be the Moment.
Be the Illusion.
Be a Limited Point of View—that is, a perspective.
Be a slobby little pet, if that is truly what you want; if that is the specific lens through which the Invisible wishes to observe itself. 🙂

I believe that is the fundamental task and the sole purpose of manifestation: to fully be whatever one is in any given moment.
That is, with the caveat that the most difficult perspective imaginable is the one where the Invisible denies itself. It is the perspective where it plays a game of self-rejection, constructing an ego—an invisible enemy—to attack the very mind and body that serve as its instruments for existing within the relative and manifest world.

Drew Moore5 said:That isn't a judgment, though. It's just a fact.

By making this post, you're essentially passing judgment yourself. You're picking a side.

One doesn't take the "opposing side" (the Leadb. side), but rather moves away from the side of God. In other words, one surrenders every judgment to an instance or energy higher than themselves.
That is quite literally the only right thing to do.
Because when you judge someone else, you are actually judging yourself.

steelridge58 said:🙂) Someone mentioned—and I’m going off memory here—that you actually have to navigate through all that overwhelming complexity before you can ever reach true simplicity.
😁So, I wouldn't say I'd be the one calling for some kind of lockout or restriction, 😁 because honestly, seeing how we all just exhausted ourselves until we finally reached a beautiful agreement makes it worth it.

🙂)

🤣

(I hope Epiphany didn't take me too seriously here...)

I missed the most interesting part of the discussion, but it looks like velveteagle8 has made things so unnecessarily complicated that I feel compelled to suggest he be banned from approaching this topic in the future.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Obviously, we can't know for sure if things like depression or anxiety existed in ancient hunter-gatherer societies, but some people argue those individuals actually had better mental health than we do in our modern industrial society. Most research is based on contemporary or recently transitioned societies, which are the ones being studied. Some studies actually frame what we call mental illnesses today through an evolutionary lens, viewing them as biological mechanisms that once helped humans survive. You can find quite a few studies and articles online about this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330161/
https://psyarxiv.com/m9pq2/download

So, I suppose we should keep in mind that human psychology evolved as a tool for species survival under conditions that were fundamentally different from what we face today. Not just slightly different, but completely different. I kind of view it as a sort of psychological allergy. If physical allergies to things like food, pollen, or dust cause bodily reactions because our environment changed, how is that any different from mental struggles like depression in wealthy societies where there isn't a direct threat to our existence? Maybe the body and mind are just overreacting to external circumstances because they're confused by the modern world. That’s just my theory, though; even medicine doesn't fully explain basic allergies yet. We've barely scratched the surface. So, where does that leave psychology in terms of truly understanding mental illness?

Jim Carrey, who found both fame and millions, summed it up like this:

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, “My gosh, it’s not about this.” And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, 'My gosh, it’s not about this.' And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

👍

Amy Bennett said:Someone mentioned earlier that humans have certain innate fears—you know, things like snakes, spiders, the dark, heights, and so on. Or just those deep-seated biological aversions to certain things.

Sure, humans are far more adaptable than most other animals—we’re incredibly plastic in how we learn—but that doesn't change the fact that we are biologically determined in some fundamental ways, much like how our social class might be influenced by our circumstances.

I can see the logic behind the idea that social classes are natural if you're only looking at different power dynamics emerging during crises. In those moments, individuals step up to lead, creating hierarchies based on who can navigate the chaos—at least according to the historical accounts we've read (though, frankly, that feels like a romanticized version of reality that might just be propaganda). Back before mass weaponry made warfare easy, these situations produced negotiators and leaders.

But those aren't classes.

According to various archaeological findings, early human societies—like those in the Neolithic era—were built on cooperation and equality. Everyone held equal weight, especially during peaceful times when there was no functional need for a supreme leader to dictate terms to the group. To the earliest humans, who hadn't yet been burdened by the long history of warfare we deal with today, such a concept would have seemed absurd.
There is even a theory suggesting that the first warrior tribes, which disrupted the peace and stability of those Neolithic communities, migrated down from the north.

ruggedraven36 said:Conflict isn't war—it's the other way around. War is just conflict that finally lost its cool.

Look, I’m telling you—I don't get how you can claim something non-physical is passed down through genetics. And then you just shrug and say, "well, it's genetic"??? That's not an explanation—it's just a circular argument.

😁

Perhaps Amy Bennett is suggesting that since ants build mounds and bees construct hives based on instinctual blueprints, there might be a parallel in humans where certain types of knowledge are hardwired into our DNA?
What does actual science have to say about this? Is there any validity to making such a direct comparison or literal translation of biological programming to cognitive knowledge?

One could easily misinterpret Hegel’s concept of necessity as something predetermined or inevitable—as if it were the "only way things could be," or perhaps even the "best possible" outcome.
But that isn't how Hegel works. For him, necessity simply refers to what has already actualized. It isn't a moral or teleological claim that things "ought" to be a certain way.

("Actual necessity is, in fact, also contingent .... that which is real is necessary in its form, yet it remains limited in its content, and within that limitation, it possesses its own contingency. ...
Real possibility is established as the counterpoint to reality and possibility; therefore, real necessity inherently contains contingency. ...
In this sense, there exists a unity between necessity and contingency; this unity is what we must call absolute reality" Hegel, Vol. 2, 161)

I honestly think any attempt to draw a hard line between what someone is born with and what they pick up through their upbringing—essentially trying to isolate "nature" from "nurture"—is just a Sisyphus task.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Well, who's saying they couldn't? It wasn't because they lacked the intellectual or physical capacity; it was simply because the technology didn't exist yet. 😁 If you took a baby born today and dropped them on a deserted island where they were raised by some imaginary "Peterson," how would that child ever learn to use technology from, say, modern USA? Would that question even make sense?

I suppose there is a valid point in asking how humans, living as hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, developed the intellect necessary to build today's high-tech societies. That’s a fair question, and it's essentially what I was getting at in my first post. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years across various Homo species, and maybe 100-150 thousand years for Homo sapiens, during which countless generations lived all over the world. Since they survived and spread globally, it's safe to assume they understood their environment incredibly well. However, I think we tend to use a modern bias when we define "understanding the world," assuming that only our current knowledge counts as advanced. We have engineering, medicine, and various sciences that allow us to build machines, communication networks, and transport systems. But a society from, say, 75,000 years ago probably possessed an equally vast knowledge of nature and survival. The challenges facing an average person back then might have been just as intellectually demanding as ours, especially since the average person today doesn't actually understand most of the tech they use. Most people can drive a car, but they don't really know what's happening under the hood. They know a plane flies and the pilot has a bunch of buttons, but they don't grasp the intricate details that make a commercial jet work. If you break down the daily routine of a typical modern person, the tasks aren't necessarily incredibly complex. They might not be much more difficult than the life of someone 75,000 years ago who had to physically survive through hunting and battling the elements every single day. I guess I'm trying to say that surviving back then was a much harder task than it is now, when we have an entire society and a massive technological safety net to catch us. Back then, natural selection was relentless; those who were more skillful, healthier, and better at providing food and protecting their group were the ones who made it. Intelligence played a huge role in that.

The bottom line is that life was much harder for the average person in the past than it is for us today.
No, we all know that. That fact is the primary argument used by those who believe evolution is essentially a journey of progress toward making life easier.
The only point of contention here is: Was the person from the past, who had to struggle so much more than we do, actually happier and more satisfied than a person living today?

Joseph Murphy10 said:I'm afraid I can't. It’s just one of those intuitive things—kind of like how you operate. See, I’m using plain old physics to describe how enslaving someone ruins the experience for the master (since their freedom gets hijacked by the obligation to care for the slave—that's a purely material thing), yet you keep trying to force some spiritual angle on me even though I haven't mentioned anything "spiritual" once. Twice, actually. You're just following your gut and projecting stuff onto me that I never even wrote. So, my gut tells me I can't explain it to you, so why bother?

It always irritates me slightly when someone starts to debate—that is, presenting an argument using specific language and concepts—only to suddenly take a pseudo-religious leap into "intuition" and "ineffable truths" because they don't know how to develop their point further.😵
If you can't fully articulate something, then don't start in the first place; that seems like the only logical and honest approach to me.
I am not imposing anything on you; I am simply asking how, within a materialist paradigm, you believe the freedom mentioned by John is possible—specifically, a type of freedom that can only exist if everyone is treated equally.

I am relying on pure physics here: enslaving someone disrupts the freedom of the enslaver, because their own freedom is reduced by the material obligation of caring for the enslaved.
Anyway, I’m not imputing anything to you; I’m just asking.

There you go; you actually managed to use words to explain how those who infringe upon another's freedom simultaneously undermine their own. The difference is that those who practice enslavement don't perceive it the way you do. They don't feel the weight of power over others as a burden. Anyone who actually viewed power as a burden would abandon it immediately (and there have been such people).
The reality is that in the materialist paradigm we live in—where we view ourselves as separate entities driven by the goal of physical survival—it is impossible for one group or individual to respect the freedom of another toward whom they feel no obligation or responsibility.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Nah. This makes perfect sense in any paradigm—inside or out. It’s just straight-up physics.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

How exactly?

I fail to see how that is logical or even remotely sensible within a paradigm where we operate under the assumption that we are separate entities fighting over finite resources just to survive as long as possible.
(And that’s the whole extent of it.)

Can you walk me through your reasoning?

(I’m also unclear on what "outside of a paradigm" actually means here. We are discussing human society, not some spiritual realm where things are accepted on faith. When dealing with belief systems whose truth cannot be verified through empirical methods, we have to judge them solely by their effects—both the psychological impact and the tangible, material consequences.)

ruggedraven36 said:That first clause in the Declaration basically boils down the whole essence of liberty. That’s why I quoted it—not because we need some warm, fuzzy feeling to hold onto. You have to actually know what freedom is. You have to grasp the concept before we can even have a coherent conversation about it. Your whole "freedom at the expense of someone else's freedom" line doesn't hold water, because the premise is that "all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights." Sure, one person can try to stomp on another's rights, but in doing so, they're just undermining the very foundation of their own.

The only way to wrap your head around this is to step outside the usual materialistic, hierarchical mindset. You have to believe we are spiritual beings, all tied together by invisible threads.

Courage is simply the realization that you have nothing left to lose, which means everything is now up for grabs 😛

There’s a certain beauty in what remains unknown.

Meg Ryan is a sweetheart, I’ve always had a soft spot for her, thanks 🙂

But this one by ruggedraven36 hits a bit closer to home 😁
Is that Françoise Hardy?

I don't know any of those secondary characters, whether they're local or from abroad. I only looked up Gabriel on Google just to get a sense of what she looks like, but beyond that, I have absolutely no idea who she is.

🙂

Joseph Murphy10 said:Like Sigmund is to Neven Budak,
Neo is to Gabriella Perisic running Fifth Day,
Volver is to Milani Vuković Runjić
Anonymous is to Aleksandra Musić
Walnut is to Peter Mitrikeska
Jednostavka is like that rector Boras Nobody
I can't picture anyone here as Ian Bobic.

Gabriella Perišić is younger and better looking than I am.

🤣