Posts by Daniel Castillo11

Sandra Morgan2 said:But that isn't the "I" anymore. Or, at least, it isn't the "I" we recognize. It becomes a field of consciousness—empty and untainted by content.

Even if the content remains—even if thoughts continue to drift through that internal space—there is no longer anyone there to identify with them because the mechanism of identification has completely broken down.

Can we even call it "I" if there are no traits, no qualities, no definitions? If it is utterly empty, much like the sky serves as the backdrop for birds flying by, yet the sky has nothing to do with the birds; the birds don't touch it, nor do they define it.

Since consciousness itself is empty, it can be neither "self" nor "non-self." Now, I can speak from my own experience up to that point, but beyond that, I have no idea what it is—and I certainly don't know what happens after death.

The focus is different, the perspective is different. But that experience alone isn't enough to draw any concrete conclusions regarding the actual nature of consciousness.

Advaita works fine regarding phenomenology; it describes that feeling of existential vacuum preceding conditioning, memes, and identifications quite well, both technically and poetically. However, I don't think it adds anything to ontology—nothing that serves as proof that consciousness is independent of the brain.

You're right. On the other hand, even without hard evidence, there are certain indications that suggest it might be so.

My personal take: I am, therefore I think. The moment I falter, the thinking stops. As long as I am thinking, as long as I am living, I can choose how and when to utilize different perspectives of consciousness.

There are no "perspectives" of consciousness. It is always one thing—singular and formless. Only the content changes.

Solipsism? Honestly, I suspect that's just a bit of linguistic gymnastics. The real issue lies in our attempt to weave raw experience into the fabric of words. From my own perspective, that sense of "I" tends to sink away, or perhaps it remains incredibly fragile; even when I spend thirty minutes or more in deep meditation, I always find myself hitting that "WTF" sensation—a strange cocktail of existential vacuum, discomfort, relief, and my favorite way to describe it: "blissful ignorance."

It all sounds quite beautiful and profound, doesn't it? But if someone were to walk up and shoot me with a shotgun or hit me with a chainsaw, all my talk of consciousness and spaces-within-spaces wouldn't do me much good. My consciousness would simply flicker out; it would perceive the world in a distorted, fragmented way until the lights go dark completely. That is, until I lose the "I" entirely through death. While consciousness might serve as the subjective starting point for my experience of the world, that doesn't mean consciousness acts as the foundation for material existence. At least, there's zero evidence for that, and frankly, everything seems to point away from both dualism and idealism.

There are no perspectives within consciousness. It is always singular, a single formless thing. Only the content changes.

I constantly get the impression that you are treating "consciousness" as if it were an object. You're viewing it as something sitting behind everything else. That right there is the subtle trap of linguistic dualism. Tell me, where was this consciousness before I was born?

urbanwalker72 said:

eternalme As stated by:
That profound depth is the realization that I am a spiritual being first and foremost, rather than merely a physical one. Even when the storms and tempests of life batter my external circumstances, my spiritual essence remains untouched, existing in a state of perfect tranquility regardless of the outcome. It is much like the vast, silent depths of the Pacific Ocean. On the surface, one might face raging twenty-foot swells, yet deep below, there exists an eternal peace and absolute silence. It is much like that.

While you previously touched upon the illness, the highlighted text suggests that you are actually doing quite well.

Many people simply aren't granted that kind of peace. Consider someone battling Alzheimer's; for them, there is no bottomless well of stillness or tranquility to be found, nor is there any way to reach it. At every conceivable level, they are being battered by a relentless hurricane of chaos.

His sense of "self" lacks the permanence of yours; in truth, it is quite fragile.

"Quote:"

I hold the firm conviction that I shall continue to advance along my spiritual path for as long as is required to achieve true personal growth.

If your ultimate objective is to achieve lasting mental tranquility and emotional stability, I would suggest that it might be more prudent to focus on preserving the equilibrium you have already established rather than constantly venturing into new experiments in pursuit of something more.

There is a profound possibility that what you seek will ultimately offer you no true benefit.

One should find contentment in what has been achieved.

"Quote:"

Sandra Morgan2 As stated by: I find myself inclined to agree with Descartes; the old adage "I think, therefore I am" remains fundamentally sound in my estimation.

It is entirely possible that your perspective holds merit. 😁 He simply couldn't afford to rely on circular definitions right from the jump. It is difficult to characterize his approach as true philosophy, given that a philosophical inquiry ought to be anchored in logic—and here, the logical foundation is fundamentally broken from the very beginning.

One cannot simply embed a conclusion within the initial premise of a first assumption. While such a structure might possess some inherent mysticism or perhaps a value that remains obscure to me, the formulation itself is ultimately hollow; it fails to offer any real explanation and serves no functional purpose in the pursuit of clarity.

There exists an inherent function in concealing and mystifying information, though I find little practical value in such tactics when it comes to meaningful discourse. While such obfuscation might serve a purpose within the realm of spiritual practice, it offers nothing to the clarity of our discussion.

"Quote:"

Attempt to reach a state of total mental stillness—which is, after all, the true objective of meditation—and try to remain composed when that sense of "self" begins to dissolve. Once you have reached that threshold, tell me whether you still exist, or if you have truly vanished.

That is a perfectly valid observation; such phenomena are certainly not confined to the practice of meditation alone, but manifest just as readily during sleep, under general anesthesia, or through various neurological conditions and the influence of certain substances.

Daniel Castillo11 explained it quite well—your meditation doesn't imply an ontological disappearance of the "I" agent, but rather its temporary dormancy, a quietening of that central symbol due to the transient shifts in brain function. An ontological disappearance of the "self" would only occur if the capacity to evoke it were permanently and irreversibly disabled.

That reality is profoundly saddening 🤣

My personal approach: I am, therefore I think. As soon as I falter, the thinking stops. While I am thinking, while I am living, I can choose how and when to utilize various perspectives of consciousness. In other words, how I experience my present moment.

It is highly questionable what exactly "you choose," whether you truly possess agency, and indeed, who is doing the choosing..

I respect spiritual practices, but I don't accept their interpretations.

Perhaps because those aren't actually interpretations at all, but rather mystifications resting calmly upon unverifiable assumptions.

It is a living demonstration of Shermer's thesis regarding believer-dependent realism. Belief arrives first, and only then follow the reasons used to justify it. In such instances, reasons do not serve to explain the thing itself, but merely to bolster the belief, thus becoming both generated and selected to suit it.

However, as you noted, that is their right... though I believe one should dispel the illusion that they are attempting to provide an actual explanation.

If they were genuinely trying to explain, their hypotheses would be risky and testable, making them epistemologically honest.

It’s also quite similar to what people call the "flow" state. It feels rather akin to a mindfulness experience, though it possesses its own distinct character.

That fact is deeply lamentable.🤣

Goodness gracious, we are on a Spirituality forum, after all. One would naturally assume that the naturalists are in the minority here.🙂

It is highly questionable what one actually "chooses," whether true choice exists at all, and indeed, who exactly is doing the choosing...

Now, I wasn't attempting to dive into the complexities of free will, or the whole free will versus free won't debate, and those other rabbit holes. I simply wanted to touch upon how one functions day-to-day—as a practice, one can choose to ruminate or one can choose to meditate. While one might experientially preclude the other, it is only a temporary state. I believe it is healthy to blend these perspectives. I mention this because it seems to me that some of the more radical spiritualists tend to favor one while reflexively judging the other. To them, reason is seen as a perversion; they view logic as stemming from the devil or the ego, suggesting one should merely live and feel.🙂

It is likely because those aren't actually interpretations, but rather mystifications that sit comfortably upon unprovable premises.

Precisely.

It is living proof of Shermer's thesis regarding belief-dependent realism. The belief arrives first, and only then are the reasons for that belief manufactured. In such instances, the reasons don't serve to explain the reality of the thing itself, but rather to bolster the belief, which is why they are generated and selected in that specific way.

They are correct. I find it quite obvious when you observe how language is manipulated and how there are constant attempts to rationalize something that has already passed its point of no return.

However, as you noted, that is their right... I just happen to think we should dispel the illusion that they are actually attempting to provide an explanation.

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I think the less "woo-woo" nonsense we have to deal with, the better life becomes.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Kudos to Descartes, but "I think, therefore I am" is spot on. In my book.

Try sitting in meditation and clearing your mind—that’s the whole point, right?—and try not to panic when that "I" starts to fade away. Then come back and tell me if you're still there or if you've vanished.

If we look at this through a phenomenological lens, what you're essentially doing in that moment is untangling yourself from all that verbal, cognitive, and affective baggage. It's quite clear that the neurotic habit of clinging to everything just snaps. That's what people call mindfulness. However, the "Self" doesn't vanish on an ontological level. It only truly disappears when you stop thinking entirely, which is basically when you're dead. This feeling of "I" is your defining characteristic; it follows you everywhere. Even in the deepest meditative states, it remains present in the unconscious. There is a distinction between mindfulness—that deep, non-verbal focus on pure experience rather than mental content—and the awareness of concepts, language, and linguistic constructs, but that distinction is purely subjective. The focus shifts, the perspective changes, but that individual experience alone isn't enough to let us draw any concrete conclusions about the actual nature of consciousness.

Now, Advaita Vedanta is perfectly fine when it comes to phenomenology; it does a wonderful job, both technically and poetically, of describing that existential vacuum that occurs before we start layering on concepts, memes, and various identities. But in my view, it adds nothing to the question of ontology—it offers no proof that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

But then again, that's just my take, which is pretty much aligned with Wandov's, and us naturalists are definitely in the minority here. 🙂

My own way of looking at it is this: I am, therefore I think. The moment I falter, the thinking stops. While I am thinking and while I am living, I can choose how and when to employ different perspectives of consciousness. In other words, I get to decide how to experience my present moment. To me, there's no "winner" in this debate. Both perspectives—focusing on the content of thought versus focusing on raw experience—have their specific merits and drawbacks depending on the situation. One is object-oriented, while the other is process-driven and dynamic. When you're practicing mindfulness, all your attention is directed toward the sensory perception of your body and your surroundings rather than the noise inside your head, and that's perfectly fine. The other extreme is neurosis, where you become overly reactive and tethered to every passing emotion, thought, and impulse.

I have a great deal of respect for spiritual practices, even if I don't buy into their interpretations.

Jacob Sanchez7 said:We can’t be certain about much of anything. Really. The whole point of spirituality is the practice itself—taking those lofty metaphysical concepts and actually testing them against the grind of daily life. It’s simple, really. You just have to be brutally honest with yourself. Recognize when you're merely observing and when you're just getting carried away with wild extrapolations. Think critically. That’s the whole game.

You could spend your life chopping wood, making grits, strolling along the boardwalk, or even just disciplining your kid—everyone chooses what they love most. That phrase "If Buddha had known..." is such a clumsy way to put it. He knew. He knew plenty, but he chose what he chose. History is full of enlightened people; some lived like ascetics, others were materialists, but neither lifestyle adds to or subtracts from their spirituality. Before enlightenment, you chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, you still chop wood and carry water.

To be honest, I’ve always had a bit of a distaste for the word "spirituality" because it carries such a heavy load of ideological baggage and clichés. Rather than calling myself spiritual, I tend to describe myself as contemplative or introspective, mostly because those terms point directly toward the practice itself rather than some specific dogma. People have this habit of taking a term, stuffing it full of their own assumptions, and then forcing everyone else to carry that weight. Once a label becomes loaded like that, people start projecting all sorts of prejudices onto it, judging a person based on the tag they wear before even getting to know them.

Absolutely, critical thinking should come first, and it needs to be a continuous process as you move through life. 🙂

One could spend their life hammering nails, cooking grits, strolling along a boardwalk, or even just playing with their kids... everyone chooses the path that resonates most deeply with them. That phrase "If Buddha had known..." feels so clumsily constructed to me. Buddha knew plenty, but he simply preferred what he preferred. History is filled with enlightened individuals; some lived lives of extreme asceticism while others were quite materialistic, yet neither lifestyle diminishes or amplifies the depth of their enlightenment. Before enlightenment, you chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, you still chop wood and carry water.

Hehe, you might just become a Zen master yet. 🙂

That last part is a classic Zen koan. I find Zen relatively digestible because of its pragmatic nature. It’s just that the word "enlightenment" still makes my skin crawl a little bit whenever I encounter it.🙂

Angela Cox4 said:Oh, so enlightenment is just a myth now? 🤣

Look, there are people out there who are lightyears ahead of you—way beyond me, too—and they aren't guessing; they're dead certain they know exactly what enlightenment feels like.

That’s true enough, I suppose. But tell me, can you actually verify someone else's lived experience? Do you have some sort of direct window into another person's cognitive processes?

"Enlightenment" is a perfect business model. Just look at how Jiddu Krishnamurti approached it. Nowadays, everyone talks about it as if they’re all discussing the exact same thing, when in reality, everyone just projects whatever personal meaning they want onto the word.

My focus isn't on those narratives; I'm talking about the tangible, measurable impact that meditating has on the physical body and the psyche. I’m not interested in the tales, the religions, the spirituality, or the metaphysical fluff.

The only thing we can really bank on is that meditation produces a specific effect on the brain and the way it processes thoughts and emotions. Scientific studies consistently show positive results regarding anxiety and depressive disorders, and according to Daniel Goleman, it also influences emotional intelligence and the level of awareness regarding our daily stream of consciousness...

I am not talking about magicians, levitation, bearded gurus, or spiritual awakenings. Those are merely the ideological layers wrapped around the actual practice of meditation.

bluemason3 said:During my time at a pretty solid yoga institute, I rarely saw meditative practices recommended as standalone sessions. Usually, they were just tossed in at the beginning as part of the physical routine. Occasionally, there’d be some mantra work—mostly for those following Hindu traditions—but even then, it was almost always bundled with the physical exercises. We did practice them, sure, but instructors often emphasized that this stuff was more for personal use rather than something to use with clients.

On the flip side, when dealing with clients facing psychological issues, we’d regularly ramp up the physical aspect of the program and strip out the contemplative elements entirely (even though mindfulness is being pushed into physical workouts quite a bit lately).

Even though people talk endlessly about spiritual philosophies, most of us usually dive into practice because something in our lives isn't working right. It's driven by problems, not just a pure hunger for truth. Plus, our modern lifestyle is worlds apart from the environments where these contemplative practices actually originated. Trying to meditate in a high-speed society where your senses are constantly bombarded isn't the same thing.

People are different, too. Everyone processes things uniquely and has a different baseline constitution. One common cultural trend I notice is an overabundance of stimulation paired with a lack of core stability, and neither is particularly helpful for deep practice.

All in all, you can't say meditation is inherently dangerous, but you can't call it safe either. It all depends on the individual, their approach, the bigger picture of their lifestyle changes, and any prior preparation. It’s like anything else. It's hard to find a food that's perfectly healthy for everyone or an object that's guaranteed to never cause harm. We just need to stop treating these techniques like religions, elevating certain methods as "magic bullets" that solve everything instantly and suit everyone perfectly (unlike the "inferior" options offered by the competition, of course). A more grounded approach works fine. A technique is just a technique; it’s only as useful as it is to the person using it. It doesn't have inherent value just because someone marketed it well to make it sound cool. For some, it might be great; for others, picking mushrooms 😛 😁 might be more useful than any meditation.

True, if only everyone could be this level-headed, rational, and thoughtful. On one hand, you have people impulsively jumping into all sorts of movements in a desperate search for a panacea; on the other, you have these "soul healers," gurus, and teachers who act more like brand managers, pushing a standardized regimen onto everyone instead of actually considering the individual's unique persona and circumstances. It makes for a pretty dysfunctional and risky business model.

I agree—for some people, vigorous physical labor will be far more beneficial than any amount of contemplation or meditation.

The primary driver behind many spiritual pursuits isn't actually the quest for truth, but rather a subtle form of hedonism or escapism—the comfort found in faith and the illusion that we can exert total control over every facet of ourselves, providing a sense of personal empowerment. Truth is its own distinct category; it doesn't care whether you like it or not, and it certainly doesn't depend on anyone's opinion.

In the past, both the environmental conditions and the cultural landscape were structured in such a way that contemplative practice flowed much more naturally into various aspects of daily life.

@analogstag29

I’m not entirely sure if you’ve quite grasped what bluemason3 is getting at here... all this talk about philosophies, spiritual enlightenment, and those other lofty concepts are really just abstractions. What we are actually discussing is the concrete mechanics of the practice itself—specifically, whether one might encounter contraindications during sessions or suffer any lasting adverse effects. At the end of the day, everything we do exerts a tangible influence on both the brain and the body, so the intensity, the method, and the frequency of our actions are far from negligible.

Whether people buy into the mystical narratives or not, they can still run into significant issues with raw practice, and that has nothing to do with their level of belief. It comes down to pure physiology, neurology, and individual psychology. This means there isn't some magic, universal formula for how much to do, what techniques to use, or when to stop. Yet, you often see spiritual instructors doing the exact opposite—they push the same stories, the same formulas, and the same rigid regimens onto everyone without any sense of personalization. When things go wrong, they tend to dodge responsibility by claiming these psychotic deviations are merely a result of a "deeper misunderstanding" or a failure to embrace spiritual reality, along with all that other nonsense. Instead of acknowledging that everyone comes with their own unique medical history and that you can't treat every person with the same protocol—in other words, that meditation isn't always a one-size-fits-all cure-all.

Contemplation is far more active and goal-oriented in its nature. It involves things like deep introspection, keeping a journal, questioning one's own motives, or pondering the deeper significance of life—whether you are wrestling with abstract theories or trying to make sense of the immediate, everyday experiences right in front of you.

While meditation and mindfulness are wonderful for sharpening focus and awareness—essentially optimizing our brain chemistry so we aren't constantly hijacked by automatic thoughts—contemplation takes a different route. It engages the intellect and reason directly, working through our thought processes to uncover true meaning, underlying motivations, or even the fundamental nature of reality itself. You could say that the awareness cultivated through meditation provides the necessary foundation; it gives us the clarity to recognize our own thoughts, desires, and emotions so that we can then step in and actually deal with them.

That being said, I have to admit there are real risks involved in contemplative practice. I find myself agreeing with bluemason3 on this point; there is simply no guarantee that someone won't experience adverse effects from such intense mental work. This is particularly true for individuals who already struggle with certain psycho-physical challenges, or those who might be genetically predisposed to developing specific mental health issues.

bluemason3 said:Quentin Tarantino

It’s confusing because people keep bringing this up as if we're talking about various levels of Freemasonry, which just isn't right. No matter who you are within the Scottish Rite, if you're in those foundational lodges, you aren't going past the third degree.

Besides, why is there such a massive push for those 33 Scots while everyone just ignores New York City? Is it just because it sounds nice and symbolic?

It feels to me like most of them are just old guys hanging out in some exclusive men's club. They don't seem to have any real grasp on the influence stemming from the Civil War era—though, to be fair, even back then, that impact was probably more indirect than direct.

Personally, I find all this talk about spirituality and mysticism—along with those massive global power players—to be pretty overblown.

New York City doesn't sound "cool" enough since it lacks that 33rd degree, stopping at just a few steps 🙂. Meanwhile, Memphis is almost never mentioned in conspiracy circles despite having 99 degrees. That doesn't imply any actual progress in any meaningful sense; they are merely symbolic stages where certain plays are performed and lessons are imparted before moving on. It's much like the ancient Greek dramas used to convey moral teachings.

Precisely. In the past, they were essentially just older gentlemen who enjoyed socializing outside of work and exchanging interests, but it hasn't been nearly what it once was. Freemasonry was a driving force behind many secular movements in the 18th century, it began to fade in the 19th, and by the 20th century, it had opened up to the general public—and today, it's even more accessible. It remains discreet and somewhat private solely for traditional reasons. However, there aren't any grand, sweeping secrets hidden away; it's really just the experience of belonging to a group. You can find everything online—the greetings, the handshakes, the passwords, the articles, books, even videos of rituals or their transcriptions. There truly is no great mystery there.

Freemasonry lost its revolutionary spirit long ago, leaving behind only a social club in the narrowest sense. Even the Masons themselves grumble, criticizing their peers and the current state of modern Freemasonry because they feel things have become too diluted and that membership standards are slipping. From the folks I've spoken with, opinions seem incredibly divided and varied from one person to the next. Trying to lump all Masons or entire groups into one single bucket with identical traits and ideologies is simply absurd. It's a real melting pot. The right wing is always the first to jump on demonizing certain groups that advocate for cosmopolitanism and liberalism, which you see in almost every major source of conspiracy theories. Many of them, if not all, are driven by extreme orientations.

As for Masonic spirituality, even many Masons can't reach a consensus on what that actually entails. For most, it's a matter of Masonic ethics and virtues rooted in the cardinal virtues of classical philosophy combined partly with theological virtues. Now... some are esoterics, some believe chivalric ideals and ethics are sufficient, some meditate while others don't, some lean toward yoga or Taoism, and others couldn't care less. Some are more interested in making donations and philanthropy than engaging in philosophical debates about the nature of good. It’s a colorful spectrum. Just like in politics—not everyone shares the same preferences.

So, it is incredibly difficult, if not outright foolish, to link entire organizations to one specific set of characteristics.

Yes, if you’re looking to dive deeper into what Hanson teaches regarding his specific techniques, you can find everything right here on his official website:

http://www.wisebrain.org/

And, just in case you find yourself wanting to explore a wider variety of possible practices, there's actually a dedicated wiki that compiles them all right here:

https://sites.google.com/site/psychospiritualtools/

blueraven6 said:Do you have any PDFs on mindfulness or know of a good website? I'm curious about how this all works and want to study it a bit.

There is an absolute mountain of resources out there. Are you looking for something within a spiritual framework, or would you prefer a more secular approach? There are several secular teachers, as well as some spiritual ones, who teach mindfulness that I could certainly recommend.

To get your feet wet, you might want to check out this lecture from Google:

Buddha's Brain : The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom





It provides a scientific breakdown of mindfulness practice and metta meditation (empathy)—covering its efficacy, practical applications, and the neurological and psychological mechanisms driving it all. It stays away from the usual mumbo jumbo, pseudoscience, or heavy religious and New Age frameworks.

If this video doesn't convince you of the utility of such practices, I truly don't know what will. 🙂

As far as the technique itself goes, it isn't complicated at all, which is exactly why it’s so appealing and fits so easily into a secular lifestyle. At its core, you are either focusing on your breath with full awareness or simply maintaining an open flow of concentration through all your senses, regardless of where the focus lands. While mindfulness—or Vipassana—is more about observing the free flow of thoughts without interpretation or active mental commentary, Metta is more about cultivating emotional and verbal intention.

Rituals are really suited for those who have a penchant for experimentation, or perhaps for those whose spirits lean more toward artistic, symbolic, and allegorical expression. On the other hand, non-ritualistic methods might involve things like creative visualization, mindfulness, or deep contemplation. While all of these elements can certainly be woven into a larger ritualistic performance, they don't necessarily need to be. Personally, after spending many years immersed in ritual work, I find I no longer gravitate toward that path. I can honestly say I’ve explored just about everything, but these days, I find much more resonance in content-free meditation practices like mindfulness—especially while walking—or even better, contemplation, which has become my absolute favorite technique. Contemplation is such a rich process because it engages the entire cognitive and emotional spectrum: intellect, rigorous analysis, intuitive and creative thought, emotional highs, and those sudden flashes of insight. You might choose to contemplate the fundamental nature of existence, profound aphorisms, classic literature, certain mathematical axioms, or engage in deep introspective self-examination—much like the Socratic methods used in modern psychology or the Zen koans found in various spiritual traditions.

The crucial part is ensuring that whatever you choose becomes a genuine routine rather than just a little weekend hobby. Once the brain acclimates to that specific mode and the altered states of consciousness produced by these practices, it will actually begin to reshape itself through the principle of neuroplasticity.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what your specific goals are. Your desired outcome should dictate which set of practices or techniques you decide to adopt.

@Sandra Morgan2

I have to admit, I’m finding myself increasingly drawn to your line of reasoning, even if we might diverge when it comes to the nature of consciousness—specifically that tug-of-war between transcendence and pure neurology.

You’ve been putting out a steady stream of thoughtful, coherent posts lately. Just keep doing what you're doing.

To be fair, Castaneda is just one of many snake oil salesmen out there; they’re as common as weeds in an overgrown garden. It really isn't surprising when you consider that consumerism isn't limited to the material goods most people grab off a shelf at a Target; we see it creeping into spirituality as well. In fact, that commercial impulse is often the hidden driver or the quiet intention behind why people dive into these waters in the first place. Speaking from my own experience, I know there's this lingering anxiety—this fear that we are merely indulging our escapist whims, trying to satisfy a sense of mental hedonism by juggling abstract concepts like shiny trinkets. That's certainly what scares those who harbor even a tiny doubt about their true motives. They are the skeptics standing on the threshold before any real initiation.

If someone chooses to remain stuck at that level—even when faced with doubt or the internal nudge to push further—because they prefer the comfort of old worldviews and social conformity, then they are truly just dabbling in quasi-spirituality. Real spirituality, at least in theory, ought to be progressive or, at the very least, transformative. If it fails to be either of those things, it’s nothing more than blind following, not much different from the dogmatic adherence seen in some religious circles.

frozengull2 said:That just doesn't seem right at all. It's simply not fair.

I don't consider myself a right-winger simply because I stand firmly behind traditional values, the natural order of human relationships, and a deep respect for our cultural heritage. It’s much more nuanced than that, really—much like how one might appreciate the foundational architecture of an old library without necessarily subscribing to every single political manifesto written within its walls. One can value the bedrock of history and the organic ways we connect with one another without being confined to a specific partisan label.

To my mind, those viewpoints align quite closely with the ideological right wing. Now, I am certainly not suggesting that someone intends to go around labeling themselves that way—that would be rather blunt—but if one continues to cling to those specific convictions, you know, the anti-cosmopolitan, anti-liberal, religious, family-oriented, and traditionalist perspectives... well, all of that essentially constitutes such a worldview, regardless of which political party someone might have cast their vote for during the last election.

Quincy:

The very fact that you’re attempting to paint me in such a light only serves to confirm the exact point I’m trying to make.

The same logic applies to your own posts, really. That’s why I mentioned how hypocritical it feels to cling so tightly to the sanctity of the church while simultaneously hurling stones at anyone who doesn't subscribe to your specific set of ideologies.

Quincy:

It seems to me that this pattern occurs quite frequently whenever we discuss Christian values here on this subforum, and I must admit, it is something that sits rather uncomfortably with me.

I find myself increasingly unsettled by the sheer amount of irrationality surfacing here on the forum lately. It honestly makes me wonder about the trajectory of the human race when people are still willing to pin their faith on such absolute nonsense. Sometimes, though, if I sit back and really take the time to dissect things, I can manage to rationalize why people act this way, which helps dull the edge of my frustration regarding how everything seems to be unfolding. At the end of the day, I suppose everyone has their own peculiar little mechanism for coping with the chaos of life.

Quincy:

It becomes particularly striking when those influences originate from those who have always looked toward the East for their guidance.

I find myself in complete agreement here. I have no intention of placing one tradition above another, yet in spiritual circles, there seems to be this pervasive fetishization of the East and its exotic cultures. It feels as though people are chasing this "new unknown" in their spiritual pursuits, but when you peel back the layers, it often boils down to little more than a fascination with the aesthetics of another culture—the scenery, the customs, the vibe—without any real pragmatic utility. Unless, of course, we decide to categorize this pursuit merely as a hobby. Now, I can certainly see the merit in studying these things through the lens of anthropology, sociology, or the psychology of religion; treating them as legitimate subjects of inquiry into how different societies function, their influences, and their structures is quite valid. However, if someone attempts to lecture me about the relevance of a four-tier caste system in the 21st century by citing the Bhagavad Gita and acting as if that justifies modern social hierarchies, well, that’s just pure nonsense. And yet, I see people falling into that trap constantly. There is this persistent bias where anything originating from the East is immediately treated as superior, simply because it hails from some magical, exotic land of vast diversity and sprawling landscapes—much like the religious pluralism we see in India.

Given that there is such a massive mountain of falsehoods floating around within the New Age movement regarding the actual practice and history of yoga, you really only need to ask Belkija; he could easily sit down and map out an entire catalog of logical fallacies and flawed arguments used by the New Age crowd when compared to the genuine truth.

To be perfectly honest, I find myself critiquing Christianity just as much as I critique New Age spirituality. I don’t really see the point in picking sides in this endless tug-of-war between New Age thought and traditional Christianity; to me, they aren't opposing forces so much as different branches of the same tree. Ultimately, both are simply products of their specific cultures—shaped by the unique geography, the era they emerged in, and the prevailing socio-political winds of the time. That is precisely why they diverge so sharply. You have the tension between liberal and traditionalist perspectives, the clash between rugged individualism and collective identity, and the way modern myths attempt to fill the space once held by ancient ones. It all boils down to how new social realities interact with old societal structures, creating entirely different ways for people to make sense of the world.

frozengull2 said:Daniel Castillo11;

People have endless reasons to bash Christianity: you’ve got history, fake texts, rigid dogmas, doctrines that make zero sense or just shift whenever it suits them, the way they used to hunt down anyone non-Christian, the Inquisition, all that hypocrisy... plus their takes on everyday stuff like marriage, birth control, abortion, sexual orientation, politics... you name it.

And look, don't go painting everything about abortion, marriage, or sexual orientation in such a negative light.

Personally, I stand right alongside the Church on these issues.

It's just intuitive to me.

The way you're talking? To me, that just sounds like neoliberal dogma.

It isn't cool to try and shove your views down everyone's throats as if they're the absolute truth.

That's just plain wrong.

Those aren't "correct" stances; they're just *your* stances (and trust me, I could find a billion people out there with a completely different set of values).

So, honestly, I'm glad there's at least someone in this world who stands firm defending what I actually believe in and support.
I'm not saying the Church hasn't had some seriously shameful moments throughout its history—far from it—but despite all that, I really respect the stance it takes in defending nature and traditional values, regardless of all this "massive populist pressure" it's facing today (which is really just people catering to the lowest common denominator).
If it weren't like that, I wouldn't give it the time of day.

The bottom line is my worldview doesn't get dragged through the mud just because you don't like it.
Especially not when that bashing uses the same garbage we're all covered in ourselves.

It's just not fair.

How can someone criticize another person when they aren't even being critical of their own obsessions?
When I say this, I'm not talking about asking questions or seeking explanations—that's always fine by me—I'm talking about pure propaganda meant to cause damage and paint a twisted, distorted picture.

Btw.
THE TOPIC ISN'T ABOUT BEING FOR OR AGAINST CHRISTIANITY; it's about the hypocrisy of New Agers when it comes to criticizing other people's beliefs.

Mods, please keep an eye on this.

What exactly isn't fair?

Looking at this entire rant of yours, all I see is a desire to "smear" others—a tendency you seem to be projecting onto everyone else. Let's not be hypocrites; let's just admit that this is a common human impulse. There's no point in running from the truth: certain worldviews are fundamentally incompatible, and that is precisely why conflict arises.

Within your emotionally charged outburst, I don't see anything other than the exact same behavior you're accusing me of—or even what you directed at Belkija when he set you off with that post critiquing Christianity. That critique was direct, and in my view, based on both logic and lived experience.

Look, you're on the right, and I'm on the left. Our worldviews are never going to align, and frankly, they shouldn't. Every individual has the right to choose their stances, their intentions, and their goals... as well as the rhetoric and logic they use to defend them. It's essentially the essence of free speech. Oops... I suppose I forgot that conservatives aren't always the biggest fans of free speech. 🙂

And yes, just because someone is deeply committed to their narrative or worldview doesn't mean they should be immune to scrutiny or shielded from criticism.

Undoubtedly, there are instances that reinforce the prejudices held by both sides. I believe the critique leveled against Christianity is comprehensive—ranging from the mundane, logistical, and organizational levels, up to the doctrinal, practical, and even the mystical or esoteric elements found within smaller denominations.

One could argue that humans have a knack for ruining even the most beautiful, elegant, and theoretically sound ideas. In practice, even the best concepts can devolve into some form of authoritative dictatorship or, in a slightly more benign sense, just a lot of empty noise.

There are countless reasons why people take aim at Christianity: you could point to its history, the alleged falsifications, the rigid dogmas, or doctrines that often seem nonsensical or constantly shifting. Then there’s the darker side—the historical persecution of non-believers, the Inquisition, the sheer hypocrisy, and so on. Beyond that, people push back against stances on more everyday matters, like marriage, contraception, abortion, sexual orientation, or even political leanings...

But I suspect the biggest issue is that Christian values, in theory, are fundamentally different from how they actually manifest in the real world. To be honest, I haven't personally crossed paths with a Christian who truly lives out their faith in a way that inspires envy through their moral or spiritual outlook toward others. For most, it seems to be little more than a beautiful story, much like so many other things in life. People naturally criticize what presents itself as being the complete opposite of what it claims to represent. There are endless examples of this, but I don't feel the need to list them all here.

And John makes a fair point; the actions and attitudes of Church leaders throughout history tell us just as much about the organization itself. If the very people tasked with promoting the faith can't seem to uphold its moral and doctrinal principles, then the faith itself can hardly be considered pure. Even if they did adhere to them, it wouldn't necessarily mean those principles are grounded in reality or practical application, nor does it mean they are inherently good simply because they are difficult to follow.

I'm not particularly fond of New Age movements either, yet one has to admit that New Age thought helped shape many liberal ideals regarding freedom, individualism, free speech, and creative expression. Had it not been for the New Age influence and the hippie movement of the 1960s, our social landscape might look quite different today. When discussing literature and cults, "New Age" is an incredibly broad term; it's a massive cultural and sociological phenomenon. It’s clear there was a deep-seated need to distance oneself from traditional ancestral religions, a void that was eventually filled by new belief systems and doctrines that are essentially incompatible with tradition. It’s much like the tension we see between the left and the right on the American political stage.

Lisa Morales4 said:Is this that specific kind of spirituality where the physical takes center stage and the spiritual is treated as secondary? The one where the human Self is built entirely on material mechanisms and mental models—essentially treating a person like nothing more than a mortal automaton?

Are we talking about that specific kind of spirituality where there isn't just one infinity, but more than one "everything"? The kind where the universe is a multi-multi, mega-multi arrangement of alternative meta-universes, making the very idea of a single universality nothing more than a total illusion?

Daniel Castillo11 As follows:
There aren't really any words to describe that kind of energy—it's already out there, manifesting and flowing without any limits or boundaries. It doesn't belong to you or me; it belongs to everyone. You're a part of it, just as much as the rest of us. You are an expression of that very essence. Just as the flower is an expression of life, you are another expression of life.
At the heart of everything lies life itself. As for what that truly entails, it’s something we may never fully grasp.

J. Krishnamurti

That’s a really beautiful quote, and it hits home. Jeff expressed almost the exact same sentiment over on his page.

This quote from Krishnamurti is actually the very heart of Christianity:

"Every mind contains all minds, for every mind is one. Such is the truth." (A Course in Miracles, a documentary film based on the book that illustrates the spiritual awakening and enlightenment of over 100 people under the revolutionary influence of Jesus Christ)

Enlightenment is really just a step beyond grasping quantum physics in the third person and understanding Einstein's fundamental laws, which show that the universe itself already possesses such an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity.

Quote: actually, "spirituality" is a somewhat nonsensical term within the context of this discussion. Especially if we approach this from the standpoint of naturalistic metaphysics, the word loses its footing entirely because, in such a framework, there is no "spirit" to be found as a distinct object. Naturalism essentially dissolves the duality of spirit and matter at its very foundation. Since I can't think of a better equivalent, I find myself using "spirituality," even though the word often carries the baggage of unprovable realities, paranormal phenomena, or religious concepts.

In a naturalist worldview, there is no Self as an ontologically isolated entity set apart from other selves. The Self isn't an object; it’s a process—essentially a collection of incredibly complex biochemical reactions that culminate in individual psychology and the construction of identity. It's shaped by evolutionary biology on one hand and societal influence on the other, but the Self is definitively a creation of the mind working in tandem with the external environment (those various biological and psychological factors outside ourselves). The core aim of spirituality in most traditions is the dissolution of the sense of self, whether that is a side effect or the ultimate goal. To my mind, a person cannot lose something they never truly possessed in the first place; therefore, perhaps this entire search isn't about discovering some higher Self, but rather discovering that such a thing simply doesn't exist. Nature is a living tapestry of endless, interconnected processes that move without any obvious cause-and-effect in a strictly linear sense. This boundless dynamism is far too vast for the human intellect to grasp in its entirety, so we attempt to describe it through linear, causal language. In reality, a human being is just one single process within nature, existing amidst the infinite dynamics of countless other processes.

is this that spirituality where there is more than one infinity—a "more than one everything" type of spirituality, where the universe is a multiverse, a mega-multiverse filled with so many alternative meta-universes that any notion of universality is nothing more than a passing illusion?

That depends entirely on which cosmological model we decide to accept as valid. For now, our best bet is the Big Bang combined with potentially M-theory (along with other string theories). We could simply refer to the existence of multiverses (if they truly exist) as the sheer state of being or existence itself.

this quote from J. Krishnamurti is actually the heart of Christianity:

"Every mind contains all minds, for every mind is one. Such is the truth." (A Course in Miracles, a feature-length documentary based on the book of the same name, which depicts the spiritual awakening and enlightenment of over 100 people under the influence of the revolutionary mind of Jesus Christ)

A Course in Miracles is pure New Age. It isn't Christianity; rather, it's a Gnostic reinterpretation of dogmatic Christianity. I don't know a single Christian theologian who endorses these kinds of esoteric ideas. So, claiming it is the heart of Christianity isn't quite accurate. If we're being realistic, it might only represent the core of one specific school of thought.

Quote: extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony and ingenuity.

Enlightenment, if you ask me, is really just a step beyond grasping quantum physics from a third-person perspective and understanding those fundamental laws laid down by Einstein—laws which suggest that the universe itself already possesses such an

Honestly, that sounds like typical religious rhetoric to me. The problem is that everyone seems to toss that word around however they please, making it feel like a hollow cliché that could mean absolutely anything or nothing at all.

Furthermore, I truly believe that for a naturalist—be they an atheist or an agnostic—this material universe alone provides more than enough foundation to be spiritual, moral, and self-aware. I fail to see how introducing speculative concepts like a soul or a spirit adds any tangible value to someone's spirituality or their ability to live out practical moral principles in their daily lives.

Paul Jones7 said:I mean, just because everything already Is, it doesn't necessarily follow that this specific manifestation of Life—you know, us—doesn't have its own concrete goal or purpose, something that isn't just fulfilled by the mere fact of existing.

So, maybe the goal isn't to hunt down some essence; perhaps it's more about celebrating that essence—trying to manifest its purest form—which, I guess, requires a higher level of awareness.

The whole concept of "purpose" is actually quite anxiety-inducing; it tends to fuel that restless drive in people who are constantly searching or running away from themselves, creating this heavy pressure that prevents them from just soaking in the moment or enjoying life as it unfolds. There isn't some ultimate, pre-ordained purpose waiting at the finish line; rather, an individual has to carve out their own meaning as they navigate through life. At the end of the day, the mystery of existence remains just that—a mystery—no matter how many mountains of philosophical speculation or deep thinking we pile up.

in that case, the goal isn't to hunt down an essence; perhaps the true aim is to celebrate that essence, to manifest its purest form, which would necessitate reaching a much higher state of awareness.

For most spiritual seekers, finding that "essence" is the ultimate prize, though they usually view it as something supernatural. Personally, I've always had a hard time with that idea of the "supernatural." If an essence truly exists, it shouldn't be some separate object hovering above creation; it has to be an intrinsic part of creation itself, given the premise that everything belongs to the same unified system—the Absolute, or Being. If something is outside of nature, then by definition, it doesn't exist within nature.

That’s why I find that regardless of which spiritual tradition or religion you look at, there is always this inherent, subtle duality creeping in. It seems clear to me that such ideas breed anxiety, which then triggers even more dualistic pairings and those somewhat pious explanations designed to transcend the very duality they created through linear reasoning. It reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail in endless circles. 🙂

I tend to believe that humans are inherently limited; we can't be aware of everything simultaneously, nor can we magically grasp the fundamental mechanics of the cosmos through experimentation. We are confined to what our intellect and sensory perceptions allow, which means we are ultimately left with our own subjective experience of reality. So, what is left once you strip everything else away? If there aren't higher planes of existence, magic, or mystical energies, then all we really have is this immediate experience, right here and now. There is a certain beauty in being conscious of the moment and recognizing that we are simply a part of the natural process—one that is always at one with nature, regardless of the identities we construct for ourselves. From that realization, a greater sense of moral responsibility emerges in how we live actively, knowing that everything is fundamentally interconnected. To me, that feels like a healthy balance.

And that, in my view, is what true higher consciousness looks like. It moves beyond concepts of the "supernatural" or the conventional moralizing that tells us we must achieve something specific or else we are failures or slaves to fate. Everything is already present; we should simply work with what we have been given through nature, evolution, and the unfolding of the cosmos. Humans might be "slaves" to various things, but it is far better to accept that reality than to delude oneself into thinking one is something more than the illusory identity shaped by brain chemistry.🙂

Here is something else I came across; I have a feeling Anthony Perez9 might actually find this quite interesting. 🙂

The naturalist spirituality shared by the great astrophysicist Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rr-jyg0MyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMED5...eature=related

And then people have the nerve to tell me that atheists aren't capable of being spiritual. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:You mentioned a few heavy hitters. 👍

It’s high time we strip the halo off these "spiritual quests" and call them what they really are—just broken, dysfunctional mental loops. Thinking God is going to swoop in and fix us because we're too weak to handle it ourselves is just another way of turning our backs on Simple Awareness. 🙂

You’re essentially talking about a short circuit in the brain. 🙂

The whole concept of a God separate from creation—this idea of a personal deity who listens to prayers and other nonsense—only serves to fuel the fanaticism found in people chasing "spiritual enlightenment." It starts with a sense of "I need," and as time crawls by, it hardens into "I must." Instead of simply realizing that a human being is nothing more than a collection of biochemical processes woven into one unique phenomenon rather than a distinct individual, they chase shadows. This kind of naturalism isn't devoid of profound insight; rather, it avoids making unnecessary assumptions and focuses strictly on what can actually be known.

Regardless of how unique an organism or process might be within the vast, sweeping flow of the Steak, that organism (which insists on calling itself "I") is merely a single drop in that current. This humble realization of the sheer scale and timelessness of the ultra-complex processes that constitute the Steak effectively dismantles all those other concepts used as excuses to push one's ego against other "processes" (the egos of other individuals).

It is quite fascinating how many spiritual, mystical, and esoteric traditions claim to affirm a universal non-duality, yet they constantly stumble into logical traps that utterly destroy that very idea of union. Much of these concepts are incredibly static; they refuse to allow any chaos into their formulas. Consequently, these spiritualities end up being inherently anti-dynamic. They will always steer an individual away from the raw dynamics of life right here and now, instead stuffing them with illusory ambitions of "transcending" the self and "manifest" reality. It goes against human biology, physiology, and psychology... There is no center, no object, no source, no beginning, and no end...